4 ms·

"freedom to protest is important in and of itself" That is your opinion, and while I agree with it, police exist to enforce laws (with discretion), not to prom

"freedom to protest is important in and of itself" That is your opinion, and while I agree with it, police exist to enforce laws (with discretion), not to promote or otherwise engage in discussions regarding civil liberties. I think he did an excellent job making his points without taking sides.

maaku 12y ago
Tow of our laws are the rights of assembly, and freedom of speech. They are written into the constitution. If that's not reasonably interpreted as a right to (peaceful) protest, I don't know what to say.
- GICodeWarrior 12y ago
  What are the boundaries of those rights? Is it OK for your neighborhood to protest by sitting in your house? What about in supermarket checkout aisles? or on the interstate? These are just random examples, but in all these cases, they are breaking laws. I think it was smart of him to discuss general discretion rather than civil liberties.
  - logicallee 12y ago
    your examples weren't 'random' enough. How about between the President and the first lady as they are trying to get some sleep? etc.
  - eternalban 12y ago
    There are no boundaries to our "rights". These are not affordances, nor privileges provided by the state. These are all our "inalienable rights" as a free people. We the People further reserve the right to struggle for life, freedom, and happiness should any subset of the people get funny ideas that they are 'above the law'.
    - jamesaguilar 12y ago
      > There are no boundaries to our "rights". I propose you test this claim by one of the methods the grandparent suggested. The protest-by-occupying-a-random-person's-house idea seems like a good one to pick.
    - tankenmate 12y ago
      If you review many of the Supreme Court of the US judgements about the first amendment you will notice that there are indeed boundaries to individual rights; most notably when these rights infringe on others' rights.
      - rimantas 12y ago
        There is a saying: "your right to swing the fist end where my nose begins".
      - eternalban 12y ago
        The legitimacy of the state in United States of America is contingent on the primacy of the principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence. This declaration was indeed an act of "rebellion" against the "laws" of the Crown of England. The essence of that document is a rejection of any notion of stratified rights and obligations, and the uniformity of the application of the law. The OP is about the POLICE. It does not appear that the POLICE are subject to the same laws as the rest of us, Citizen.
        GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
        The legitimacy of the US, like all other states, ultimately derives from the successful application of force against other states.
        maaku 12y ago
        * derives from the successful application of force against its people. Fixed that for you.
    - 12y ago
alan_cx 12y ago
My take is that laws exist to protect our rights. Police exist to protect those rights by enforcing the laws that protect those rights. There for the police exist to protect our rights, including the right to protest. There is no discussion for the police to engage in, they just should do their job. If the police are not protecting protest, they are failing at a very basic level and, IMHO, cant claim to be called "police".

maaku 12y ago

Tow of our laws are the rights of assembly, and freedom of speech. They are written into the constitution. If that's not reasonably interpreted as a right to (peaceful) protest, I don't know what to say.

GICodeWarrior 12y ago
What are the boundaries of those rights? Is it OK for your neighborhood to protest by sitting in your house? What about in supermarket checkout aisles? or on the interstate? These are just random examples, but in all these cases, they are breaking laws. I think it was smart of him to discuss general discretion rather than civil liberties.
- logicallee 12y ago
  your examples weren't 'random' enough. How about between the President and the first lady as they are trying to get some sleep? etc.
- eternalban 12y ago
  There are no boundaries to our "rights". These are not affordances, nor privileges provided by the state. These are all our "inalienable rights" as a free people. We the People further reserve the right to struggle for life, freedom, and happiness should any subset of the people get funny ideas that they are 'above the law'.
  - jamesaguilar 12y ago
    > There are no boundaries to our "rights". I propose you test this claim by one of the methods the grandparent suggested. The protest-by-occupying-a-random-person's-house idea seems like a good one to pick.
  - tankenmate 12y ago
    If you review many of the Supreme Court of the US judgements about the first amendment you will notice that there are indeed boundaries to individual rights; most notably when these rights infringe on others' rights.
    - rimantas 12y ago
      There is a saying: "your right to swing the fist end where my nose begins".
    - eternalban 12y ago
      The legitimacy of the state in United States of America is contingent on the primacy of the principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence. This declaration was indeed an act of "rebellion" against the "laws" of the Crown of England. The essence of that document is a rejection of any notion of stratified rights and obligations, and the uniformity of the application of the law. The OP is about the POLICE. It does not appear that the POLICE are subject to the same laws as the rest of us, Citizen.
      - GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
        The legitimacy of the US, like all other states, ultimately derives from the successful application of force against other states.
        maaku 12y ago
        * derives from the successful application of force against its people. Fixed that for you.
  - 12y ago

alan_cx 12y ago

My take is that laws exist to protect our rights. Police exist to protect those rights by enforcing the laws that protect those rights. There for the police exist to protect our rights, including the right to protest. There is no discussion for the police to engage in, they just should do their job. If the police are not protecting protest, they are failing at a very basic level and, IMHO, cant claim to be called "police".