4 ms·

I understand and agree with everything you said. My understanding is that around 2000 people were arrested[1] for peacefully assembling. It wasn't 2am, and the

by grecy 7y ago

I understand and agree with everything you said. My understanding is that around 2000 people were arrested[1] for peacefully assembling. It wasn't 2am, and they were not sacrificing any humans. In the case of Naomi being arrested that I posted above, she very clearly knew the sidewalks are public, and she was very clearly not breaking any laws, and was arrested anyway. Of course charges were later dropped, because the Police very well knew they had nothing on her. So when the Police in the USA don't like your perfectly legal use of 'right at assemble' they arrest you, fingerprint you, make sure you get a record and are out of the way for a while, then just kick you out the back door when they're sick of you. That doesn't sound so great to me. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street#Arrests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street#Arrests

lawlessquestion 7y ago
Then it would be up to a competent attorney to sue the arresting officer under 42 usc 1983 civil actions for deprivations of rights. The law provided for reasonable attorney fees to be paid by a defendant who violated your civil rights. The nice thing is that even though your suing the officer who violated your civil rights they are usually covered by an insurance policy so it's technically not an asset poor officer paying the judgement
- grecy 7y ago
  > Then it would be up to a competent attorney to sue the arresting officer under 42 usc 1983 civil actions for deprivations of rights. The law provided for reasonable attorney fees to be paid by a defendant who violated your civil rights So you somehow feel better about your rights being deprived because "sue everyone". In the mean time the authorities have effectively shut down the protest, that was perfectly legal. But they stopped it anyway. So it achieved nothing, and the 'right to assemble' is a myth. > The nice thing is that even though your suing the officer who violated your civil rights they are usually covered by an insurance policy so it's technically not an asset poor officer paying the judgement Ah, the true American dream. Sue someone for a ton of money, and you don't even have to feel bad about it because it's not even their money!
  - lawlessquestion 7y ago
    Better that then the successful plaintiff being left holding the bag when their civil rights are horrifically violated. Excessive force cases can and do result in death and disability not including whatever mental trauma. Better the people that the state that employs law enforcement bear the cost associated with their actions, then victims of civil rights violations are unable to collect against a bankrupt defendant.
    - mistermann 7y ago
      Any comment on the "In the mean time the authorities have effectively shut down the protest, that was perfectly legal" aspect?
    - grecy 7y ago
      And better yet would be your right to assemble actually being worth a damn, and you never being arrested for doing something that is supposedly legal. You're so caught up in the whole charade of "Money = Life" you don't even realize there should never have been an arrest or a legal battle in the first place, if the American people really do have a right to assemble. Now if they don't, your discussion is valid I suppose.
      - lawlessquestion 7y ago
        Use your right to bear arms to defend your right to assemble.
        mistermann 7y ago
        This seems less optimal than simply not denying people their rights in the first place. Are you opposed to that idea for some reason?
        lawlessquestion 7y ago
        Not at all. However we live in a world where law enforcement for a variety of factors continue to attempt to suppress our rights to assemble.
- acollins1331 7y ago
  Yeah well the fact that the police officer doesn't have to pay for their version of malpractice is stupid as hell.
- wcunning 7y ago
  Except that under the doctrine of qualified immunity that case would be thrown out for an infinite number of tiny reasons. Check out the Institute for Justice for a good run down based on cases they've fought.

by grecy 7y ago

lawlessquestion 7y ago

Then it would be up to a competent attorney to sue the arresting officer under 42 usc 1983 civil actions for deprivations of rights. The law provided for reasonable attorney fees to be paid by a defendant who violated your civil rights. The nice thing is that even though your suing the officer who violated your civil rights they are usually covered by an insurance policy so it's technically not an asset poor officer paying the judgement

grecy 7y ago
> Then it would be up to a competent attorney to sue the arresting officer under 42 usc 1983 civil actions for deprivations of rights. The law provided for reasonable attorney fees to be paid by a defendant who violated your civil rights So you somehow feel better about your rights being deprived because "sue everyone". In the mean time the authorities have effectively shut down the protest, that was perfectly legal. But they stopped it anyway. So it achieved nothing, and the 'right to assemble' is a myth. > The nice thing is that even though your suing the officer who violated your civil rights they are usually covered by an insurance policy so it's technically not an asset poor officer paying the judgement Ah, the true American dream. Sue someone for a ton of money, and you don't even have to feel bad about it because it's not even their money!
- lawlessquestion 7y ago
  Better that then the successful plaintiff being left holding the bag when their civil rights are horrifically violated. Excessive force cases can and do result in death and disability not including whatever mental trauma. Better the people that the state that employs law enforcement bear the cost associated with their actions, then victims of civil rights violations are unable to collect against a bankrupt defendant.
  - mistermann 7y ago
    Any comment on the "In the mean time the authorities have effectively shut down the protest, that was perfectly legal" aspect?
  - grecy 7y ago
    And better yet would be your right to assemble actually being worth a damn, and you never being arrested for doing something that is supposedly legal. You're so caught up in the whole charade of "Money = Life" you don't even realize there should never have been an arrest or a legal battle in the first place, if the American people really do have a right to assemble. Now if they don't, your discussion is valid I suppose.
    - lawlessquestion 7y ago
      Use your right to bear arms to defend your right to assemble.
      - mistermann 7y ago
        This seems less optimal than simply not denying people their rights in the first place. Are you opposed to that idea for some reason?
        lawlessquestion 7y ago
        Not at all. However we live in a world where law enforcement for a variety of factors continue to attempt to suppress our rights to assemble.
acollins1331 7y ago
Yeah well the fact that the police officer doesn't have to pay for their version of malpractice is stupid as hell.
wcunning 7y ago
Except that under the doctrine of qualified immunity that case would be thrown out for an infinite number of tiny reasons. Check out the Institute for Justice for a good run down based on cases they've fought.