Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: There IS NO "unlawful" assembly!!!

Posted 11 years ago on Nov. 28, 2011, 1:45 p.m. EST by ScrewyL (809)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

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.



Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by Rico (3027) 11 years ago

Amendment V:

No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

You can't peaceably assemble on my front yard, no deny my access to public property. You also can't prevent my peaceable journey to work, or prevent me from earning a living.

I'm all for this movement, but let's get our law straight.

[-] 0 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

Correct! You wouldn't believe how many times I've had to re-emphasize "peaceable"... ("Well what if they're beating me with foam dollar signs stained in blood and oil??!?!?!" -.- )

However: don't get overzealous with your supposed "right to get to work" -- that's not precisely defined, and therefore not quite protected. For example, the 'public roads' might be under construction and therefore you may have to take a detour.

Similiarly, the town square may be full of angry Guy Fawkes, so you have to slip into parliament through the back door.

Don't go shooting up people just because they're on your favorite sidewalk. You have rights, they have rights. It's public land, and they outnumber you.

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 11 years ago

In practice, government cannot deny a permit, but they can deny the place and time of the permit, which is essentially the same thing. State and municipal governments have been granted the legal authority to regulate public assembly, thus the need for a permit.

Cox v. New Hampshire (1941) A unanimous Supreme Court upheld a local (Manchester) ordinance that required every parade or procession on a public street to obtain a license for a fee. Jehovah's Witnesses had brought the suit alleging that the city of Manchester had denied their religious freedom. The court was clear that ordinance had to be reasonable and designed for the safe and orderly use of the streets.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 11 years ago

nucleus.....I didn't notice MLK asking for permission from the oppressors to peacefully protest.

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 11 years ago

I'm not supporting the court decision, just posting the facts.

The Supreme Court is MORE corrupt as the rest of government - they are appointed for life.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 11 years ago

nucleus....Your say your not supporting the Court decision.........Well tell me what was your motivation in posting it.........I mean there are lots of facts out there why post this one.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 11 years ago

Read the title of the thread. The facts of various legal rulings are pertinent to the discussion.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 11 years ago

okay my bad.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 11 years ago

a) were you alive then? b) if so, were you intimately involved in the planning and execution of his marches? If not - stick to what you know.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 11 years ago

Yes and Yes...

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 11 years ago

Sorry - I was just feeling a little snarky... of course I still think you're lying :)

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 11 years ago

Your entitled to your opinion...I need to prove nothing to you.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 11 years ago

I wouldn't expect you to prove it, even if you could.

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

"or abridging"

-- That ruling is in error.

[-] 3 points by nucleus (3291) 11 years ago

OCCUPY The Supreme Court.

Appointed for life by a partisan corproate political process. This is one element of the constitution that desperately needs to be addressed.

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

Agreed. "Lifetime appointment" never had a place in a free republic.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 11 years ago

The Police are the Law...they will arrest you for no reason, hold you for 8 hours and release you.

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

Exactly, except: The People are The Law.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 11 years ago

Screwyl...I agree with you in principle but in reality the police do what they want and make up evidence to suit their needs.

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

Yes, and I blame you for that.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 11 years ago

Screwyl....WTF..how did you come up with that.

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 11 years ago

Screwy, you can argue about it all you like and wish for it to be so, and demand it is the way you want it to be, but not all the wishing in the world or stomping your feet makes it true.

disrupting the peace is not protected. And the reason we know its not, is because for 200 some years, the courts, all the courts have interpreted it that way. That's where you go when you get arrested and try to tell a judge that the Constitution means one thing and the judge tells you it means another. And then makes you pay a fine.

That said, the arrests from Occupy might go all the way up to the higher courts and COULD get the historical interpretation of the courts changed. That's what the judicial system has the power to do if the legislative branch becomes ineffective.

But the reason it wont happen, is because of the rights of OTHER people. No matter what, your right to do something, can't infringe on another person's rights. I know you're about 17, but imagine if your little brother came in your room and tore up your bed and dressers and clothes. Its not legally your stuff because mom and dad pay for it. How mad you'd be when mom and dad say that he has a right to do what he wants and was just expressing himself.

There sure is unlawful assembly, and it IS what the law say it is. (lawful/unlawful> law) because the regular people want their lawful rights protected from unlawful people.

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

When did I say disrupting the peace is protected?

I recall stating that...

"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."

Or something to that effect. I swear there's a reading comprehension issue here.

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 11 years ago

I'm sticking to the 1st amendments exact wording, since it doesn't say anything like some other amendments do as per states laws .

Has any one fought it in court as per this strict ideology ?

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 11 years ago

The right to free speech and protest has been argued time and time again in courts for the past 300 years or so. Continually, the courts agree, that you can't disrupt the peace while protesting, or its not peaceable assembly.
Disrupting the peace includes blocking traffic or sidewalks or other ways of infringing upon the rights of others.


[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 11 years ago

You watch too much tv. Peaceful assembly means you are not disrupting the peace. Which means not blockading public areas/ports/bridges/roads/subways/sidewalks. You know, its not big business calling the mayor's offices and police departments to have Occupy evicted. Its the mom who wants to take her kids to the park, its the guy who wants to drive to visit his sick mom, and its the worker who can't go to work at the port and loses a paycheck. Your rights end, where another person's rights begin. It is selfish of anyone to think they have more rights than another person.

Blockading a public right of way is not peaceable assembly.

Westboro Baptist church, while I HATE using them as an example, protests peacefully. They have lawyers in their family, so they know you can't block anything. They block no roads or sidewalks. They assemble peaceably.

Perhaps you were mistaken to think that the 1st amendment means you can assemble as long as you're not committing bloodshed?

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

Go look up 'abridging'.

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 11 years ago

then finish the sentence. they can't abridge your right to peaceably assemble. But you have to PEACEABLY assemble, which means you can't disrupt the peace to do it. As long as you are not disrupting the peace, they can't abridge your right. But...what do you think disrupting the peace is?
You have to Keep reading, dont stop at and hang your whole hat on one word, you have to take the total clause and what it legally means, not what you want it to mean.

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

RIght. Now, go look upa the the first amendment which I quoted above.

Which did I say?

1 - Peaceably assembly 2 - Violent revolution

Which one did I say?

So... Which one am I talking about? Good, Now why are you here again?

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 11 years ago

you're missing the rest of the sentence. Peaceably assemble means you can't disrupt the peace.
I'll use smaller words. It doesn't JUST mean you can't kill people. It also means you can't disrupt the peace. Like taking over a park other people want to walk their doggies in. Or making noises at night.

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

When did I talk about a park? What park? Doggies?! -- You're assuming, as many have in this topic, that I'm referring to Zucotti Park. I am not. My title was overbroad, I'll grant you that. My quotation, however, was verbatim.

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 11 years ago

and you're twisting it to mean what you what you want it to mean. If you are disrupting the peace, that is not peaceable assembly. Thus ...you CAN unlawfully assemble when you persist in disrupting the peace. EXAMPLES (stretch your brain for this, these are examples) of disrupting the peace including blocking roads and sidewalks so that no one can pass by you, taking over parks so that people can't use them, and blocking ports so that employees can't get to work to use their paychecks. This is what the constitution says verbatim, and this is how it is applied. You can't make it to say or mean something different just because you want it to be different. An assembly IS unlawful when it does not come under the Constitution protection of 'PEACEABLE', and that is verbatim. It must be peaceable to be lawful. If it disrupts the peace, it is an unlawful assembly. See what the other words mean in the amendment now?

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

You can't read.

My title was too broad. My quote was precise.

I'm not twisting anything, you're hung up on your whole violent revolt thing, which has nothing to do with anything I said.

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 11 years ago

Yes, it does have everything to do with what you said. You claim there is no unlawful assembly. Yet, the constitution says as you yourself have quoted it....ONLY peaceable assembly is lawful and protected. Congress cant make any laws abridging peaceable assembly. Congress can make all the laws they want that abridge unpeacable assembly.

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

sigh I made that claim in my TITLE, which I have twice now said was too broad.

[-] 1 points by Brandon37 (372) 11 years ago

Sorry ScrewyL you are wrong. Peaceful assembly and freedom of speech does not include taking over public areas and harassing shoppers indefinitely.

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

In the title I was speaking generally about many protests--more in reference to the countless times I have seen police disperse entirely peaceful, quiet, and law-abiding assemblies in public spaces using the "This is an Unlawful Assembly" line over their loudspeakers.

Slight hyperbole, since it is defintely possible to act unlawfully while assembled. However, rarely is the assembly itself unlawful, and this is why I have a big problem with police kettling and dispersing protestors -- especially since that often leads to billyclubs and chemical agents.

Since 'peaceable assembly' doesn't include harassing people, you can safely assume that I wasn't refering to harassing people. I certainly wouldn't stand for someone harassing me!

However, I must take issue with your characterization of "taking over public spaces". This is a loaded phrasing, ripe for abuse. If the available protest area is small, and the protest group is large, then through no fault of their own, you, the hapless passer-by might feel encroached upon.

That's unfortunate, but also too bad. It's a public area; no more yours than it is theirs. Gonna have to get along, maybe even hear 'em out. :)

[-] 1 points by Brandon37 (372) 11 years ago

I think it is more about the sanitation issue. Had the OWS occupiers been fighting an actual force, it might be a different scenario. I would defend anyone's right to protest. It's just the format.

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (1035) 11 years ago

There is unlawful assembly when a judge says there is. They get to interpret things and balance them when your rights conflict with those of someone else. Besides the Occupy movement has been allowed to assemble. The argument arrises over the living arrangements of the groups.

[-] 1 points by theCheat (85) 11 years ago

Does that mean you have the right to sit in the middle of a runway, or peacefully block commerce?

[-] 2 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

Runways are usually private property, so no. The Constitution has no jurisdiction on private property. The authority over that falls upon the sovereign property owner.

If the particular runway you are hypothetically referring to is public; then the answer is yes.

Note that the current political fetish is to try to privitize government functions, and I cannot help but feel this is an attempt at an end-run. In most of those cases I would argue for the abolishment of said government function.

Commerce has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment; are you asking a serious question?

[-] 1 points by theCheat (85) 11 years ago

Yes I am asking a serious question. Does the first amendment grant you the right to sit on a public road blocking commerce from taking place?

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

No; it prohibits government from abridging that right.

[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 11 years ago

Correct, no violation of law. What is happening is that citizens are trying to defend the constitution, . . . but they don't know it. If they make a demand for an article 5 convention then law enforcement and municipal leaders will have to back off.

Protestors are actually trying to gain acountability for very serious crimes and treason, but they don't know that. They only know the impacts of the crimes and their demands relate to that. Congress has bee violating the constitution for 100 years by failing to convene delegates.

Bill Walker sued all members of congress and learned quite a bit. Video and general resources on article 5.


Lessig power point on article V http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gpbfY-atMk

Lots of facts here about Article V. http://algoxy.com/poly/article_v_convention.html

Article V conference, Lawrence Lessig at harvard 9/25/11-other attendee video comments http://vimeo.com/31464745 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-7ikbvu0Y8

We need to Occupy Congress and put them on notice with a petition of greivance. That starts the clock ticking on the 45 day contractual period of notice for them to begin to call state delegates for a convention to propose amendments.

This is a letter that actually cites the violations of law that congress is conducting at this moment having neglected, non feased and mal feased for so long we are seriously needing to engage remedy. This could be legitimately be used to Occupy Congress in constructive notice.

Then go to the state


Now it comes to finding who understands that protests need to be organized upon states legislatures. They need to understand some legal aspects too. Here is a letter template, resolution form that can be sent to state legislatures asking them to work for an article V convention.


Article 5 is our first and last constitutional right. If we don't use it now, we will not have any rights.

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 11 years ago

I like this persons knowledge base !

This info is better than paying to go to college and come out book wise but street unwise !

Thank you !

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 11 years ago

Thanks! Please pass those nuggets along. Things are so serious I tried to get the issue of an article 5 application from the cali legislation by putting it on the ballot.

Federal Constitutional Convention. Initiative Statute. http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/failed-to-qualify.htm

1480 (11-0003) failed because of a pre emptive major cognitive infiltration of the society going back some years dissing an article 5. Probably coinciding with the major infiltrations exemplified at that time by ollie north for example with iran contra.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 11 years ago

Peacefully assembling to protest is different than taking over parks.

Plenty of successfull revolutions have been fought and won without the people camping overnight in parks.

Im not sure what the obsession is with taking parks. It doesnt have anthing to do with corrupt banking and money in politics.

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

Thank you for your comment, but you have yet to demonstrate that "taking over" public parks is unlawful.

Furthermore you employ logical fallacy by stating that the two things are "different".

"Peacefully Assembly" is a superset of "camping overnight in parks". That is, if one is camping in a park, then they are also "peaceably assembled".

It is inaccurate to claim the two are different, when one contains all instances of the second. (Unless you're camping alone!)

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 11 years ago

Ok, I am going to come and occupy your front yard to protest OWS.

Do you see where this is going? There is a difference between protesting and taking land for your own good.

and like I said, plenty of revolutions will prove that having your people sleep in parks isnt neccesarry, and probably does more harm than good.

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

My front yard is private property. The sidewalk and street are all yours.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 11 years ago

That park in NYC is private property too...

[-] 1 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 11 years ago

my understanding is that the private owners have a legal and binding contract with the city to maintain the property as a public park, open to the public for public use.

OWS for the win! : )

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 11 years ago

Thats your understanding, and obviously many share it. Malls have the same agreements. The city maintains the local homedepot parking lots, would it be alright to camp out there?

Im just saying that deciding to overtake anything and everything has nothing to do central banking and bought politicians.

Plenty of succesful revolutions have been won without the people camping in parks. Im not sure why it has become so important.

[-] 1 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 11 years ago

It a symbolic, and literal re-appropriation of "power". This is OUR Republic. We give a portion of our independent sovereignty by electing representatives to legislate on matters that concern the Public. OWS is saying that those representatives are no longer serving the public (they are serving private interests of a narrow minority) and so people are assembling, and initially they chose a very symbolic location: Wall St. Since it is the corruption of "legalized bribery" of our elected representatives that OWS seeks to address and abolish.

I don't know of any successful "revolutions" that occurred because people stayed at home, or obeyed every command given by the powers-that-be.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 11 years ago

Im not saying staying at home, lets not take this to the opposite extreme. Im saying all over the country people are just up and deciding that they now care about the constitution, when they probably didnt even know how many amendments there were before OWS.

Obeying commands by the powers that be, thats understandable. And I think its good at raising awareness. But so many are getting arrested around hte country fighting for the constitution that they dont even understand, and like I said, there never has been a revolution thats main goal was camping out in a public park.

I just think its doing more harm than good. 1% of NYC joinging would be 20,000 people.

Rally points are one thing. Turning this into Boy Scout camp, eh, Im not sure its even neccesary....

[-] 1 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 11 years ago

well if people are not politically engaged and learning something about the Constitution as well as the power structure in society i say OWS for the win already.

camp on my fellow Scouts!

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

Is the public explicitly welcomed?

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 11 years ago

You would have to ask the owner. Im guessing he decided no.

This whole park thing has taken this thing so far off course that its turned into anarchy.

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

My topic's title IS overbroad, however it was by way of making a point; I've seen police claim "this is an unlawful assembly" in the middle of town squares


[-] 1 points by Edgewaters (912) 11 years ago

I don't know man. Think about this: what if the some group blocked all the bridges in the country until the government did whatever they want? It could be anything, any wild political doctrine, and they'd only need enough support to hold a good number of bridges, not the support of the majority. It could be the Tea Party or some fascist group in the future 100 years from now, or just, anything.

[-] 2 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

I'm sorry, but that is the nature of the "Republic for which our flag stands": The rights of the sovereign individual are held inviolable against the will or wishes of the majority.

It may be inconvenient sometimes, but it sure beats tyrannical fascist dictatorship -- or democaracy.

[-] 1 points by Edgewaters (912) 11 years ago

A tyrannical fascist group could do this, and that would be more than an "inconvenience". Say you had a new Hitler and he couldn't get elected so he got his Brownshirts to block all the traffic or whatever.

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

First of all, your allegory didn't require a 'Hitler' or 'brownshirts' -- you're introducing a loaded example to try to bludgeon my sensible mind into dislogic.

If a public intersection is blocked, then I must go around it.

If I cannot go around it, then I will appeal to reason.

If my appeal is ignored, then I am a prisoner, and I will defend myself.

It makes no matter to me the political leanings of the impediment.

[-] 1 points by Edgewaters (912) 11 years ago

.... okay then ....

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago


[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 11 years ago

well, that is a federal document, and the states are cracking down.

[-] 2 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

42 U.S.C. § 1983:

Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

So, please, enough with the old debunked "The states can violate your rights because they aren't Congress" myth.

They ARE Congress. They joined Congress when they ratified the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, and any violations of it they must answer for.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 11 years ago

ok i made this same argument earlier. if you look at the people getting arrested and you see the same people being released with out charges, doesn't that tell you that the arrests are more for intimidation than for compliance violations. that is a local decision being over ridden by the constitution. The city cop arrests you per the mayor, the federal judge releases you per the constitution. no?

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

Correct, and I have no sympathy for the oppressed who fail to prosecute. Money -> Mouth.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 11 years ago

i guess you should give me your money so i'll shut my mouth because I am sympathetic to direct democracy through the article 5. because when you don't have money to do your heavy lifting for you, you innovate. peace.

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

It was a colloquial expression; your rebuttal against 'having money' is therefore moot, as it twists my meaning and argues in the wrong direction.

Rights do not take money to enforce. They take will, strength, and luck.

But then, I have a feeling you still expect 'the government' to fix itself and save you. I however, am armed.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 11 years ago

never needed a boom stick to cancel checks my mouth could cash.

[-] 2 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

Then you've obviously never told a banker to quit stealing.

[-] 0 points by Spankysmojo (849) 11 years ago

Awesome. Thanks.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 11 years ago

That's right!

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 11 years ago

They cannot make a law to deny the right to assemble. They can control the location and the duration of an assembly. In the same vein, the government cannot restrict free speech, yet they can mete punishment for irresponsible speech for; endangers others ("fire" in a theater), publishing lies (liable and slander), misrepresentation of products...

Were the OWS mob to assemble on the land of a farmer who allowed the assembly to occur, there would be no interference other than a determination to make sure there were facilities to accommodate the crowd. Funny how the OWS mob does not have to provide portopotties for the crowd.

They really seem to have very selective indignation.

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

On your first point, you're wrong. Congress makes laws. Executives execute them.

There is no act an executive can legally take without a law authorizing that action. That's a fact. It is the structure of our system of government, and the precise meaning of the term "Lawful Order". Ask any lawyer.

On your second point, you're right -- and I too am surprised that OWS isn't funding it's own sanitation.

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 11 years ago

In modern Amerika the Constitution means whatever the judicial system (including police) wants it to mean at any given time. This country hasn't followed the Constitution since the end f the Civil War.

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 11 years ago

Looks like homeboy has never gone camping, because you would know you need a PERMIT!!!

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 11 years ago

Beautiful today and I wanted to take a stroll in my old familiar stomping grounds... I've taken this stroll almost everyday for the past 20 years... but now my park is "occupied" by what appears to be vagrants. I'm not feeling real good about this; in fact, I find their presence intimating, particularly so since I have 1% tattooed all over me.

These are not assemblies, let alone "peaceful" assemblies. If these "people" were peaceful, they would vacate the park. A peaceful assembly is not a public nuance, a disturbance, confrontational, or a charge on the public good.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 11 years ago

On any given day without protestors, there are homeless people, drug dealers, rapists, etc hanging around city parks so your analogy is falsely described here.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 11 years ago

My analogy does apply because it expresses my desire to be secure in my property. My property has been invaded by those intent on turning it into a refugee camp.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 11 years ago

You own and live in a public park, wow!

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

Troll on a stroll?

XD Relaaax, I couldn't resist.


[-] 0 points by jeramyjay (8) 11 years ago

The right to peacefully assemble, causing any distress or instilling fear onto others verbally makes it no longer peaceful, perception is in the eye of the beholder.

If I walk past a ows and people shout at me for going to let's say Walmart, I now feel threatened I have the rights to contact the police, they are now defending my rights as an American by making the formerly peaceful group disband.

[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 11 years ago

Your statement is not based in fact, but in what you want to believe to be true. Recall in the past few years the group that has elected to protest war by showing up at the funerals of soldiers. This is more than distressing to the family of the dead, yet the legal system supported this form of protest (distasteful though it may be...). I am a person who is somewhat shy..what seems distressing or hostile is to me is not the same as it is to other people. Perception, however, cannot be made into law. For example, sound ordinances are created using measures of decibals rather than allowing people to just say "my neighbors tv is too freakin loud... "

[-] 0 points by jeramyjay (8) 11 years ago

I have no problem with people peacefully assembling in protest, so yes my perception and how I interpret the law says once you cause distress and impose on someone elses constitutional rights it's no longer peaceful.

Once again. I will say I support many of the ideas of ows, I just think the actions they are taking is doing more harm than good for the cause.

[-] 1 points by powertoothepeople (280) 11 years ago

People in Zucotti Park were not shouting at any passersby.

Where does this counter argument come from, it is not the first time I've seen it.

[-] 0 points by jeramyjay (8) 11 years ago

Occupy everywhere is well everywhere major cities etc, it has happened at multiple locations from what I understand.

I still don't understand what occupying does other than draw negative attention to a movement with some good ideas

[-] 1 points by MitchK (305) 11 years ago

jeramyjay...you are 100% right....the key word in that LAW of ours is PEACEABLY...it does not mean ...if I can not get my way than letsact out illegally,tresspass, threaten,harrass,disrupt, the normal every day affairs of those who are adhereing to the laws and are being productive members of society. Than when I do get involved in these illegal actions complain when the police protect those uninvolved citizens and sometimes use force to stop me after I use force or I was told to stop cause I am breaking the law.

[-] 2 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

He's not 100% right. He's not even 50% right, on either point.

Point #1 - perception is in the eye of the beholder
False. Causing fear is plainly illegal, however that "you" are in fear does not make me guilty. This is the meaning of the phrase "a reasonable person" in Law. It removes subjective interpretation.

Point #2 - if i feel threatened I have the right to call the police
The famous court case DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services ruled that government officials have absolutely no obligation to protect you, even when they are fully aware that you are in immenent danger, UNLESS you are already in their custody when harm comes to you.

However, you have the "right" to call the police anytime. Or the Whitehouse, or Pizza Hut for that matter. Jeramy's error was in associating the "feeling threatened" with "the right to call police"; they don't have anything to do with eachother. Look, I'll call the police right now. brb.

[-] 1 points by MitchK (305) 11 years ago

can you show me where yu got that case site from..De v Wi was a case involving 14th amendment rights such as due process, pertaining to a child abuse case where the mother,if I am correct,sued the DSS saying they should have protected the child knowing he was in danger from the father,somewhere around 1989 I think....14th amendment due process laws,only pertain to those who are hel by that state instituion in question you can only violate someone due procees right is held by such an instituions than and only than would they be violatin ghose right by knowing he was in danger.....I am conifed what this has to do with it...whered you get the case cite from? Basically it was an argument to determine that they the DSS did not violate his due process rights

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

You are correct about the 14th amendment limit in scope of the DeShaney case. You can read about it on Wikipedia; the link is a few comments below.

That said, however, The States have broadly applied that ruling to mean, literally, that Police do not have to respond to calls, rescue children drowning before their very eyes (it happened), or do any of the other things you might consider "protecting you". Many states have even gone so far as to pass explicit statutes claiming this is the case.

--And yet, I side with your perspective on the limit in scope, and furthermore I personally feel that DeShaney was incorrect in it's ruling; that infact the Department of Social Services WAS negligent and therefore liable. Dissenting Justice Blackmun on that case made this famous statement:

"Poor Joshua! Victim of repeated attacks by an irresponsible, bullying, cowardly, and intemperate father, and abandoned by respondents who placed him in a dangerous predicament and who knew or learned what was going on, and yet did essentially nothing except, as the Court revealingly observes, ante, at 193, "dutifully recorded these incidents in [their] files." It is a sad commentary upon American life, and constitutional principles - so full of late of patriotic fervor and proud proclamations about "liberty and justice for all" - that this child, Joshua DeShaney, now is assigned to live out the remainder of his life profoundly retarded. Joshua and his mother, as petitioners here, deserve - but now are denied by this Court - the opportunity to have the facts of their case considered in the light of the constitutional protection that 42 U.S.C. 1983 is meant to provide"

So in all truth, you can consider my statements to be cynical resentment of what I believe is a derelict police force. I personally feel that the Police are paid public funds and given special authorities, and therefore dereliction is deserving of at LEAST unemployment.

[-] 1 points by MitchK (305) 11 years ago

Wll again I would need to see cae law or laws passed where they applied it to lietrally mean what you take it as....and I also got to say your point is that ...police that get paid to protect and serve should not protect you from threats or acts of violence? They should do what the DSS did and turn their back on you? Is that what you think?

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals." (paraphrased)


Go take a look at the full text of those, and the surrounding sections. It's eye-openning how little California seems to care!

As for how I feel about how Police should behave: I believe that they actually DO have the obligation to protect you, but the courts and statutes unfortunately say otherwise.

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

The Police have no obligation to protect you; that is not your right.

You have the right to defend yourself, under common and natural law.

[-] 0 points by jeramyjay (8) 11 years ago

Lol what world do you live in?

Police serve and PROTECT.

Once you break the law, ie threaten people your protest is no longer peaceful, and you are imposing on my constitutional rights, the police there for must serve to protect my rights and disband the mob, and yes I say mob because they are no longer peaceful.

[-] 2 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services

"The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf. it is the State's affirmative act of restraining the individual's freedom to act on his own behalf - through incarceration, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty - which is the "deprivation of liberty" triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause, not its failure to act to protect his liberty interests against harms inflicted by other means."

Since Joshua DeShaney was not in the custody of the DSS, the DSS was not required to protect him from harm.


[-] 0 points by jeramyjay (8) 11 years ago

I am having a hard time tying this case to what I said. But I will expand my thought process. Say that I as an individual going to work where there are protestors, and feel threatened, I report it to authorities, they say they cannot help. So I deal with the threats and harassments for a few more days, then I decide I need to protect myself, I go to work those same protestors walk towards me with the same harassing and perceived threatening behavior, so I start shooting. What happens?

[-] 2 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

Most likely, you would be arrested and then get tried for assault with a deadly weapon, probably found guilty (with a competent jury) and then imprisonned. If it is discovered that you brought your gun with you for the purpose of comitting murder, then it would be First or Second degree, and you would get a very severe sentence. Then you would go on to live the rest of your life in guilt at having needlessly taken a life because you lost your nerve one day.

Guns are for defending life and property in immenent danger, not "feeling safe".

The first day they didn't hurt you. The second day they didn't hurt you. The third day you blew them away, when you should have realized they weren't a threat.

Now, If instead of you "perceiving" a threat, there was an actual threat, as in: a weapon, or if they attacked you, or if they cornered you against a wall...

--then I would have shot them for you.

[-] 0 points by jeramyjay (8) 11 years ago

A group of people threatening and advancing towards me? So just because they had not attacked prior does not mean their intent has not changed. I for one hate violence but if it came down to it, the mob advancing towards me I now feel my life is endanger I am simply protecting myself.

I may have written my last comment which implied I shot people what if they are just warning shots.

I also have to ask how harassment and threatening people, can still be considered a peaceful assembly?

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

It can't. Go read the 1st amendment. Does it say anything about harassment?

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 11 years ago

you never go full retard

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

No, you're right. I leave that up to you.

What on earth would make you think that dropping a grammatically questionable and unimaginitve piece of overused movie dialog could ever be an appropriate response in a comment thread discussing legal findings made by courts regarding police responsibilities?

And, once it slipped past your social filter, how did it also manage to evade your evidently immense cognitive process, which should have concluded that your outburst would be perceived as irrelevant?

...Shouldn't you be on 4chan or something?

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 11 years ago

police responsibilities? lol you would have to have a sub 70 IQ to think that the department of social services are the only department of law enforcement. Police are required by law to respond to a claim of assault (verbal) or battery (physical) thus protecting you. So may I remind you "neva go full retard"

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

Not to shatter your preconceived pearly universe where the government loves you, but...

--Not in California: (and a lot of other states)


[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 11 years ago

711 is not legally obligated to sell me cheep beer but they do, your laws do not prove anything other than the police are not accountable to the people. They still provide a service. PERIOD

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

owschico said: Police are required by law to respond to a claim of assault (verbal) or battery (physical) thus protecting you.

ScrewyL said: FALSE.

ScrewyL: 1
owschico: 0

[-] 1 points by owschico (295) 11 years ago

I warned you already Never go full retard. In order to receive federal 911 subsidies, law enforcement agencies are required to respond to 911 calls for assistance.

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

Woohoo!! Federal Subsidies!!!! Gimme moarrrrrr

Whoa. Now I feel retarded.


[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

In a republic, the government is limited only to responding to complaints -- never preemptive action, and there is good reason for this! For one, it violates the tennant of "innocent until proven guilty".

And for two, it enables, as in the case you describe, the refusal of rights which are unalienable.

In a Socialist Democracy, however, government is easily steered by the majority to tax and redistribute wealth and power and property by force; -- however that system is inherently susceptible to corruption, whereby the "redistribution" is in reality theft, since it is placed in the hands of the politicos and their backers rather than applied for the common good.

Any number of indirect "risk-based" schemes can be utilized to hide this theft. Ahem, social security.

As for nonviolent revolutions, I'm sure there have been many -- however our opponent here will most assuredly turn to violence as they have several times already.

"Violence" derives from "violation"; self-defense is not violence.


[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

That's right. Never preemptive. Our original form of government does not permit preemtive action on the part of the government.

I proved my point, now... Were you planning on making a valid one, or are you content to make incorrect assumptions about both my age, experience, and solar exposure?

I'm not a fan of passive aggression, btw.


[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

Oh. Well, in that case, you were probably in favor of him being put IN to office as well, since the same family did both!

have a nice day.


[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

I don't think you understood. Bush Sr. put Saddam into power. Bush Jr. took him out.

Also, burning oil wells is no reason to hang a person, and whatever Saddam did or didn't do to Kuwait was Kuwait's concern.

Furthermore, didn't your mom ever teach you that two wrongs don't make a right?

And finally no, I'm not a 'miss'. You did not "get the gender right"; I'm not even sure what you're referring to. When did you guess at my gender?

It's Mr. ScrewyL -- or "Justice ScrewyL" to you.


[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

You're not being sincere, but:

When did I say or imply that Saddam was a favorable person?


[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 11 years ago

This statement, cannot possibly be sincere:

..if he was such a favorable person.. for you ..sorry for your loss

Because, I never said that he was a favorable person... for me..

And--even if I had (which I didn't) for you to say that you are "sorry for my loss" is disingenuous since you clearly state that you were for his removal, and that would be melodramatic anyhow, since from context you can reasonably infer that I have little vested interest in Saddam personally.

So no, you are not sincere. You are even lying about that!

You're not following the conversation very well or responding to my questions either, which makes this a tedious conversation as I have to remind you and repeat myself.

And, since this is an internet forum, and not a face-to-face confrontation, I cannot beat you senseless for being so offensive. So, I will have to opt for the next best thing, and that is to ignore you.

Have a good day.