Students attempt Citizens Arrest on Rove!

Originally posted by Realtruth
1) Rove is not exercising any constitutional rights, he was paid $40.000.00 as a professional.

You are so far past wrong on this one, there isn't a word for how wrong you are. One does not give up their Constitutional Rights simply because they are being paid. I would suggest you read the Constitution, in case you aren't familiar with it. There is no part of the First Amendment that reads "unless you are being paid to speak."

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
However, you do not have the right to be disruptive. Often times, even the most peaceful demonstration can be disruptive in some way. A permit allows one to be disruptive, and legally protects those protesting.

Where in the 1st Amendment does it say permit required?

People forget our forefathers were extremely disruptive, that is why they left england and came to the America, in fact they drafted up a document to protect people's rights. "The Constitution"

These people may have crossed the line a bit being vocal or a bit disruptive, but sometimes that is how you draw attention, otherwise people will not listen. These people felt they needed to exercise their constitutional 1st amendment rights, and did so. Could their approach have been better executed and more professional? Absolutely.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression

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.

Redress
redress v. 1. To set right, remedy or rectify. 2. To make amends for. n. 1. Satisfaction for wrong done; reparation. 2. Correction.

reply to post by Realtruth


I'm sorry to tell you this, but it is you who has his facts and logic backward.

If certain students were upset about Rove's speaking fee, they could have voiced their disapproval in a manner that did not disrupt the right of Rove to speak and the right of those who wanted to hear him speak.

This is nothing but mob behavior and it is inexcusable and I stand by my position that those who were involved in this disruption should be expelled from the university for life.

This kind of thuggery should never be tolerated in an institution of higher learning.

College is the place where many are given the opportunity of grow up and they should either do so or live on the streets like the bums they are.

en.wikipedia.org...

Citizen's Arrest
United States

Each state with the exception of North Carolina permits citizen arrests if the commission of felony is witnessed by the arresting citizen, or when a citizen is asked to assist in the apprehension of a suspect by police. The application of state laws varies widely with respect to misdemeanors, breaches of the peace, and felonies not witnessed by the arresting party. American citizens do not carry the authority or enjoy the legal protections of police, and are held to the principle of strict liability before the courts of civil- and criminal law including but not limited to any infringement of another's rights.[10]

Though North Carolina General Statutes have no provision for citizen's arrests, detention by private persons is permitted and apply to both civilians, and police officers outside their jurisdiction.[11]

Detention of any person is permitted where probable cause exists that one has committed a felony, breach of peace, physical injury to another person, or theft or destruction of property. The key distinction between arrest and detainment is that a detainee may not be transported without consent.

The state of Washington does not have a specific statute granting citizen's arrest powers. However there have been several state court decisions rendered that affirm and uphold common law citizen's arrest power for (a) felonies committed in the presence of the person making the arrest or (b) misdemeanors committed in the presence of the person making the arrest provided the misdemeanor also constituted a breach of the peace.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


Yeah, buddy! So true and well versed, I could not agree with you more!

RANT (to exceed the one line post)

What gave the police, on two occasions now, the right to decide they were the judicial system and not take Rove into custody? Innocent until proven guilty, but this can not be decided until a trial is commenced. You or me, and the police would have taken us in, but not Rove. A corrupt judicial system, a stonewalled Congress trying to investigate CRIMINAL ACTIONS. This was the second attempt huh? It is only going to progress when your average citizen has no other option than to act as a vigilante and take the law into his own hands. Maybe he will rethink his next speaking engagement, but I doubt it, he has nothing to worry about (him and all the immune neo-cons) that have ruined our country.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by Realtruth
1) Rove is not exercising any constitutional rights, he was paid $40.000.00 as a professional.

You are so far past wrong on this one, there isn't a word for how wrong you are. One does not give up their Constitutional Rights simply because they are being paid. I would suggest you read the Constitution, in case you aren't familiar with it. There is no part of the First Amendment that reads "unless you are being paid to speak."

lol! I think I understand the constitution.

Let's see was Rove exercising his constitution rights? or was he being paid?

Read the constitution yourself and understand every word of it.

Rove went to the University as a paid entity, not person or group that wished to redress the government.

Did he have the right to freedom of speech?, absolutely everyone does.

As always, I am amazed how people only want freedom of speech for those who they agree with. This was a elementary, immature, and an obvious publicity stunt, but I'm sure because it fits with what the media has told people about Rove they will eat this up. They already are.

Sometimes I wonder, what will happen when the mythical "neocons" all leave in November and people can no longer blame them for this countries problems? Despite what the media has told everyone, I am quite sure all the problems will continue when Hilary/Obama get in office. When will people learn that who is in power means nothing in terms of the prosperity of this country? Probably about the same time people stop looking through their political ideology colored glasses - which will be never.

[edit on 11-3-2008 by pacificwind]

i think some people house a subconscious fear of going after the "gov't puppets" put in place by the money masters, intelligence agency's and mega corporations to be figureheads.

the fear could be ...why not just go along with the lies and manipulation as well as the stripping away of rights and act like we believe them because in reality; should they be that corrupt how would they react should the majority call their bluff and try to stand up to the "system". what does anyone have to gain? the uncertainty and fear of a totalitarian forceful gov't response to any "uprising" is worse than going along with lies and even just rationalizing all the b.s. till the point when you believe it. I mean it's not like the gov't puppets will say ok you got us, we will make sure the next batch of puppets behaves.

reply to post by Realtruth


You're conveniently leaving out the "peaceably assemble" section in the First Amendment, as does everyone else that thinks it's ok to just show up and shout down anybody with differing opinions.

reply to post by percievedreality


What you fail to see is that people of opposing views to yours have just as many rights as you. Not everyone feels the same way, or sees the nobility in your call to vigilante behavior. That's why in a country ruled by law, people of opposing view points don't have to worry about being killed by other people who think that their beliefs justifies such behavior.

[edit on 11-3-2008 by BlueRaja]

Originally posted by Realtruth
lol! I think I understand the constitution.

Let's see was Rove exercising his constitution rights? or was he being paid?

Rove went to the University as a paid entity, not person or group that wished to redress the government.

Despite your claims of understanding it, you demonstrate that you do not.

Exercising ones Constitutional Rights and being made are not two exclusionary ideas. Do think Freedom of Press does not allow for reporters to be paid?

It does not matter if he was seeking to "redress the government." Your belief that Freedom of Speech and the right to redress the government are one in the same further demonstrates you do not understand the Constitution. Though they are contained with the First Amendment (and indeed the same sentance) they are seperate and wholly self-contained ideas. It does not matter if he was there to criticize the government or to discuss the windmills in Holland, he has to Constitutional Right to do so, regardless of being paid.

Originally posted by Realtruth
Where in the 1st Amendment does it say permit required?

It doesn't, but it does say...

...the right of the people peaceably to assemble...

Read that carefully. Just in case you missed it the first time...

...the right of the people peaceably to assemble...

Do you see the operative words in that statement? "Peacefully...assemble." Disruptive is the oppositive of peaceful. Even if you think you are being peaceful, if you interfere with someone, that is the definition of disruptive, thus you are no longer being "peaceful." Therefore, a permit allows you to both exercise your First Amendment rights and be disruptive.

You are mistaking the right to peacefully assemble as both the "right to assemble no matter what" and the "right to be heard." There are no Constitutional guarantees for either.

[edit on 11-3-2008 by SaviorComplex]

reply to post by Realtruth

Originally posted by Realtruth
lol! I think I understand the constitution.

Do you? Let's see...

Originally posted by Realtruth
Let's see was Rove exercising his constitution rights? or was he being paid?

Both.

Originally posted by Realtruth
Rove went to the University as a paid entity, not person or group that wished to redress the government.

So what if he did? And how do you know what topics he spoke of? And what does it matter?

And if you're somehow implying that the punks that attempted the "citizens arrest" were there to redress the gov't, well, they were in the wrong place. Karl Rove is no longer a gov't employee.

Btw, thanks to Sri Oracle for supplying us with that excerpt above. This should be emphasized:

American citizens do not carry the authority or enjoy the legal protections of police, and are held to the principle of strict liability before the courts of civil- and criminal law including but not limited to any infringement of another's rights.[10]

Which would have landed those punks in jail had they succeeded in "arresting" Rove.

reply to post by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by Realtruth
Where in the 1st Amendment does it say permit required?

City and state laws apply.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Do you see the operative words in that statement? "Peacefully...assemble." Disruptive is the oppositive of peaceful. Even if you think you are being peaceful, if you interfere with someone, that is the definition of disruptive, thus you are no longer being "peaceful." Therefore, a permit allows you to both exercise your First Amendment rights and be disruptive.

I have to disagree. I doubt that you'll find any permit that grants you the right to be disruptive.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

I'm sorry to tell you this, but it is you who has his facts and logic backward.

This is nothing but mob behavior and it is inexcusable and I stand by my position that those who were involved in this disruption should be expelled from the university for life.

You don't have to be sorry, but I accept your apology.

I for one am very thankful to be hearing people bitching and complaining, because what it means is we still have the right to "Freedom of Speech".

Many members of my family, including myself put their life on the line, for this country and freedom. I don't agree with particular approaches, but I will not suppress a voice until it is heard.

Politicians have plenty of media time where people can not voice their opinions, and when the average Joe writes his local politician it mostly goes unheard or responded by a canned letter.

Many people like you and the current government would like to suppress and punish people for speaking out. I am proud not to be one of those people, but a true champion of how the USA was founded.

I agree their approach was extremely flawed, but the right to speak out makes the USA a great country. I am sure those students have learned a lesson and will handle themselves accordingly in the future.

It's all about the symbolism.

Thomas Jefferson:

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.

[edit on 11-3-2008 by Realtruth]

reply to post by jsobecky


To add to your statement- if they had apprehended Rove, that would've been kidnapping, not a citizen's arrest. Unless you witness someone in the commission of a crime, you can't just take it upon yourself to arrest them simply because you believe that at some point they may have committed a crime. That's where some of the folks around here would not receive a passing grade on constitutional law. You made some very good points that many around here should pay attention to. They rant and rave about the Constitution, but have a pretty limited or perverse understanding of what rights and responsibilities citizens have.

Originally posted by Realtruth

Thomas Jefferson:

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.

Which is why the Founding Fathers designed the United States as a Republic, not a true democracy.

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan

He got paid for his time and insights. It's not his fault there are some loonies in the audience.

The only loony was the one on stage.


Why can't you see that?

[

[edit on 11-3-2008 by asala]

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by jsobecky

 

To add to your statement- if they had apprehended Rove, that would've been kidnapping, not a citizen's arrest. Unless you witness someone in the commission of a crime, you can't just take it upon yourself to arrest them simply because you believe that at some point they may have committed a crime.

Yes, but what if you "believed" you witnessed them commit a crime?

Originally posted by jsobecky
I have to disagree. I doubt that you'll find any permit that grants you the right to be disruptive.

I think you are misinterpreting disruptive to mean "harmful." Think of it more as "anything that interferes."

For example, you've certainly seen demonstrations that march down a street. This is a disruptive act, but with the proper permits it is allowed. Or take a mass demonstration in a park; this would disruptive to anyone wishing to us the park for other purposes, but it allowed with the proper permits.