Mass Arrests, Tear Gas, Sound Weapons used Against West Illinois University Students

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by D377MC

 

I could care less if you take exception to the words I used. They are what they are. The students were drunk, inibriated, intoxicated, 6 sheets to the wind, insert whatever here.

They were so intoxicated, that EMS had to respond to deal with alcohol poisoning.

PIcking apart words tells me you dont have any argument you can defend. Period.

The students caused the probvlem by acting in an irresponsible manner. That is not in dispute, contrary to the way others want to portary what occured. The facts are there, the articles are there, the video is there.

There is nothing to debate - The foficers ctions were within policy, they were within State Law and they were within FEderal law.

There was NO violation of 42 USC 1983.

Please list the names of the students who were drunk.

Please cite your source that all the students were drunk.

Please list the names of students treated for alcohol poisoning.

Please prove to us there were no designated drivers, no house mothers, no people who are alergic to alchohol, no people who are recovering abusers, no people who normally abstain at this party.

Your blanket statements are just that, blanket statements meant to deflect from the individual occurences you in fact can not list, and to deflect from the police brutality clearly evident in the videos.

Labelling everyone in a large gathering equally guilty of imaginary crimes you slander them with allegations of having committed is the clearest sign that you have no argument.

It is this precise type of false and deceptive and slanderous thinking that enables armed henchmen of the state to carry out crimes against the citizenry and it should be noted as the clear and present danger that it is, when it is evidenced in an armed henchmen of the state.

Here in America all people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

You sully the standards and ideals of this nation with your rediculous arguments.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Proto - BIB - Colby and the others...

Please answer the question -

Why do you condone the action of the students? Why do you find it acceptable to destroy city property, to vandalise other peoples property, to start fires in the street (whcih the youtube video shows), and to throw beer bottles at EMS while they are treating patients, and then throw beer bottles at the police?

A. No city property was destroyed a stop sign was vandalized and damaged.
B. No damage was done to the homes, 8 of which are owned by the same landlord who has no problem with the students throwing these parties.
C. No structures were burnt by these fires and no people were injured by them, fire being something most humans learned to master long ago.
D. No evidence of beer bottles being thrown at EMS is present.
E. The police violated civil rights, invaded private property, and committed crimes against the citizens, the citizens were within their constitutional rights to defend themselves against the agents of a unlawful police action.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Well so-called copper, you can take your little code book, and shove it. I really don't care anymore, I am done being extorted by any government body.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Please list the names of the officer you say used excessive force.
Please cite your source.
Please list the laws the police broke
Please list your source
Please list the names of the students who had their civil rights violated
Please list your source


Once again your idiotic manner of debate shines through. You do this all the time.. Info is presented that you ignore, then you demand details that arent listed for obvious reasons.

Let me explain this to you, even though you claim you know the law, your comments / questions clearly show, once again, you have no clue at all.

HIPPA - Prevents any person other than the person affected from releasing their names, medical information or any other identifiying information. If you want the names of the people who were being treated, you need to ask them to release the info, the Hospital nor thre Police can do that.

Active Investigation - Prevents law enforcemnt from naming people who are being charged with a crime. That information does not become a matter of public record until the charges are filed by the Proescuting Attorneys office. Direct your requests to them for the names of the students.

What other BS questions are you going to ask us now?

All of the information to support my argument have been listed, while at the same time you comtinue toi ignore the questions be asked of you, which you can personally answer.

Why do you condone the actions of the students who threw beer bottles at EMS?
Why do you condone the actions of the students who threw beer bottles at the Police?
Why do you condone the actions of students who started fires?
Why do you condone the actions of the students who refused to leave the area?
Why do you condone the actions of the students who held an illegal block party?

The students are the ones who initiated the problem, forcing a police response.

Aside from your patenly obvious BS campaign to keep the focus on the police, please answer the questions above.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Well so-called copper, you can take your little code book, and shove it. I really don't care anymore, I am done being extorted by any government body.

Look up what extortion is before you tell someone off.. It will help you not look like ass when you pick up your marbles and go home because your not getting your way.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

Not against the law, unless a no-burn decree is in force by the Fire Marshall.

This is the only thing that might be not correct. In the last town I lived in in NY, you actually had to go down to city hall and get a permit to have a fire in your yard, ludicrous isn't it? You had to pay 75 bucks for a year permit...

Of course it is not an arrestable offense, just 150 bucks fine if you got caught. All about extortion these days, BS written by the rich, and enforced by the mindless drone police.

Other than that bravo, keep handing these police apologists their asses again and again, maybe one day they will see the light. I can only hope one day their children will be abused at the hands of the uniformed thugs, sometimes that is the only way they see the light. Then again sometimes they will take a fellow thug's word over their own family as well....

edit on Wed, 04 May 2011 17:06:11 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

This is something that likely varies from town to town and from state to state.

Here in Florida burning is permitted except in areas where it is posted camp fires are not permitted.

In various municipalities and counties the Fire Marshall will during times of drought or extreme wheather conditions issue a no-burn decree for the affected area.

Burning during a no-burn decree is a 135.00 dollar ticket and if the Fire Department has to be called out to extinquish the fire, then the cost of the fire department is also tacked on.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Extortion, outwresting, and/or exaction is a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups.

Sounds about right to me.....
Who said anything about taking my marbles home?
Only people that look like a fool in this thread is people taking the word of a few coppers, over the loads of evidence to the contrary...

reply to post by Xcathdra


So in other words you have none of the information requested but would like to pretend you do through slandering me for allegedly not having viewed previously despite the fact you have not posted it.

You asked a question and this is the answer let me repeat as you are so often prone to do.

A. No city property was destroyed a stop sign was vandalized and damaged.
B. No damage was done to the homes, 8 of which are owned by the same landlord who has no problem with the students throwing these parties.
C. No structures were burnt by these fires and no people were injured by them, fire being something most humans learned to master long ago.
D. No evidence of beer bottles being thrown at EMS is present.
E. The police violated civil rights, invaded private property, and committed crimes against the citizens, the citizens were within their constitutional rights to defend themselves against the agents of a unlawful police action.

(A) please display all damaged property, bills, repair estimates, replacement orders.
(B) please list all homeowner insurance and police claims
(C) please display any dwellings burnt by address and fire marshall report, and or, any hospital reports of anyone suffering from burns or smoke inhalation.
(D) please provide sword avidavits from EMTS including the descriptions of the alleged assailants who assaulted them with beer bottles and hospital reports detailing their injuries.

The cops were out of line the responded with excessive force, the videos clearly display that, and you can't provide the evidence required to make your prima fascia argument.

I made mine a long time ago.

can anyone confirm the identities of the "students" who threw bottles at EMS ?

maybe they are actually there to incite the disturbances and are not really "students"

maybe they are "students" who were paid to start the trouble ?

IMO to be clear.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
A. No city property was destroyed a stop sign was vandalized and damaged.

So City property was destroyed. The Stop sign is city property, it was uprooted from its location and thrown in the fire.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
B. No damage was done to the homes, 8 of which are owned by the same landlord who has no problem with the students throwing these parties.

Cite your source - and damage was done according to the articles.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
C. No structures were burnt by these fires and no people were injured by them, fire being something most humans learned to master long ago.

Fires being set inside city liits is against the law. Fires being set on a city street is against the law. Why is it these people who discovered fire a long time ago, just recently discovvered they have opposbale thumbs. Dont start fires in the street, and dont burn debris in peoples yards.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
D. No evidence of beer bottles being thrown at EMS is present.

Evidence of beer bottles being throw is in the articles, as well as the reports that have been released by the County. Again you are cherry picking the info form the articles. Beer bottles were thrown at EMS and at Police. Just because that info doesnt support your Bs argument, doesnt mean it didnt happen, and your attempt to deny that is a joke.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
E. The police violated civil rights, invaded private property, and committed crimes against the citizens, the citizens were within their constitutional rights to defend themselves against the agents of a unlawful police action.

Agauin I see you are once agaion showing us your ability to not know what the hell you are talking about. No civil rights were violated. Private property was violated by the 3k students present, and if you knew the law, you would know there are exceptions to law enforcement when it comes to dealing with a situation, including disregarding parking regulations, disregarding the speed limit, the ability to discharge a gun inside city limits, and yes, even the ability to be present on property owned by a person not invlolved in the situation.

The unlawful action came form the drunk students who destroyed city property, who blocked public right of ways, who started fires, and who threw beer bottles at EMS and the Police.

All of which is in the articles listed, and can be seen in the youtube vidoes posted.

It would be easier at this point for you to jsut come clean and admit that you hate the government so much that you are willing to use this type of an indident, to spin the information contained to support your argument, and then to outright lie to the people in the thread about what occured.

You dont know the law
You have no idea how those laws work
You have no idea about hw law enforcement operates
You have no clue about case law that governs our use of force and what we can and cant do.

All you see is your petty argument and lies, and you are desperately hoping that by lieing and continually spinning your answers, while ignoring questions, that people wont see through your chirade...

To late.. Leave the thread now with what little diginity you have left, and once you get home, look up the term integrity.. It would be whats missing from your argument by the way you lie when stating your position.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Finally so you can understand if you can't establish the charges that are the basis for the excessive use of police force then obviously it was an excessive use of police force.

The video evidence does not substantiate your allegations and you have no documented proof of the allegations you are making in the form of official documents such as described above.

The fact that you can't provide the evidence to support your case simply reinforces that the draconian and abussive excessive use of force, was just that.

You have no argument at all, if you can not prove what you are alledging triggered the attack ON UNARMED PEACEFULLY ASSEMBLED CITIZENS.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


I have provided all of the information that supports what I ahve been saying, as others have as well, oincluding the posting of the youtube videos.

The info you are requesting is irrelevant to the debate at hand. By asking for that info what you have done, and what you always do when you lose an argument, is to confuse people and to divert attention.

Please name the officers involved
Please provide a source

Please explain what laws the police broke
please cite your source

Please name the students who had their civil rights violated
[Please name the officers who violated those civil rights
Please cite your source...

See what I did there.. the same thing you did.. You wont be able to get that information.. You do this because you cant win the argument based on the facts, because they dont support your position.

The only way you can win is to lie, and you are already doing that by saying civil rights were violated.

Originally posted by xuenchen
can anyone confirm the identities of the "students" who threw bottles at EMS ?

maybe they are actually there to incite the disturbances and are not really "students"

maybe they are "students" who were paid to start the trouble ?

IMO to be clear.

Ah yes.. One of protos partners in crime, along with BIB who I saw gave us his 2 ruppees earlier.

This is the other part of the dynamic trios tactic, and for those who want to verify, fell free to view the Hamas thread where they attacked a school bus.

They come in, make claims they cant support, ignore requests to provide evuidence, then begin to speculate about who did what, always coming back to the government, regardless of what evidence is present.

They attack the info provided and any person who has a differnet point of view..

There next step will be to attack the information prvided, demanding details not present except in offical police reports. They then demand other evidence, like names, and then the twist the evidence, like here about the fires, and if people were "paid" to be present to throw items.

Then they attack the poster...

All the while they ignore the info present.. I callit their circular argument, since all they do is go in circles, asking the same questions in a difrerent manner, they come back and claim sources were never psoted when they were, all to wear down the people in the debate, so they can win their argument by default because people get so tired of hearing their same BS over and over and over.

Proto
BIB
Xcheu

What countries are you guys from? What experiences do you have with American Government at the fEderral and State level. What experince do you have with our Laws?


The info in this thread is clear - you guys just ignore it

3,000 students at a block party that the city said no to
Police working with the students who had the party anyways, checking id's
Students get drunk and out of control and force confrontation with the police

There is nothing to debate here.. It happened, the accounts are present, and the students brought it on themselves by failing to leave the area.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


You cant even explain what excessive use of force is. There was no excessive use of force. I have told you this. There is NO 42USC violations present in the videos.

The only people who broke the law were the 100 students / non students who were issued citations / have charges pending against them.

This is not a hard concept to understand.. I dont understand why you have such a hard time understanding that.

By the way though thank you for supporting my post about you and the other 2 argument style... Now you are in pahse 3 of that, attacking the poster because the evidence is so overwhelming it no longers supports your agenda here, which is to take this situation and turn it into something its not so you can feel better about your soverign citizen BS.

The reason there is no violations listed for Police by the way, is because their were no violations by the Police. AGAIN, I refer you to 42 USC 1983 to prove my point.

The Macomb Police Department has a history of excessive force complaints, most of them involving the liberal use of pepper spray. One incident involved a handcuffed student's head being slammed into the trunk of a squad car, resulting a broken orbital. I've been a victim of overzealous MPD officers. In fact, I don't know anyone who hasn't been screwed with by the Macomb cops. How do I know all of this? Not only do I have two degrees from Western Illinois University but during the time I spent at WIU, two of those years were on Wheeler Street. This party happens annually and I've participated in it multiple times. This is WAY less complicated than some wild, half-assed conspiracy theory that the Macomb Police Department's behavior was a "dress rehearsal for the future." It was a party. It was a very very large party that got out of control. It really is that simple.

Originally posted by skinnyb82
The Macomb Police Department has a history of excessive force complaints, most of them involving the liberal use of pepper spray. One incident involved a handcuffed student's head being slammed into the trunk of a squad car, resulting a broken orbital. I've been a victim of overzealous MPD officers. In fact, I don't know anyone who hasn't been screwed with by the Macomb cops. How do I know all of this? Not only do I have two degrees from Western Illinois University but during the time I spent at WIU, two of those years were on Wheeler Street. This party happens annually and I've participated in it multiple times. This is WAY less complicated than some wild, half-assed conspiracy theory that the Macomb Police Department's behavior was a "dress rehearsal for the future." It was a party. It was a very very large party that got out of control. It really is that simple.

Thank you for your info...

I will point out that not all of the officers were from Macomb PD.. They had officers from WIU, The County SO, State Police and a few other agencies prior to the issues. After the issues started, more agencies repsonded from surrounding areas.

As far the complaints go with pepper spray, those come in a lot when its used, and usually because people not involved end up getting exposed in one form or another (wind and being to close / right angle, or the jail and exposure to others). Its also dependant on whether or not personal cans were used, or if they used foggers.

Proto - If you think this is some big conspiracy, then I urge you to keep tabs on the court information. Eventually the reports become a matter of public record, and willc ontain witness statements from people on scene who are NOT law enforcement.

reply to post by Xcathdra

So City property was destroyed. The Stop sign is city property, it was uprooted from its location and thrown in the fire.

There is no evidence that a trash fire can burn and melt metal.

In fact it can't, it needs reinstalled and a coat of paint. three man one hour job.

Send me the bill for pity sake.

Try to stop clubbing innocent kids in the meantime if you can.

Cite your source - and damage was done according to the articles.

Read the thread, its a few pages back, if you weren't so busy trying to figure out how to misconstrue everyone elses argument and spamming the thread with your nonsense trolling you would have read it already.

I am not your secretary.

Oh would those be the articles that simply say damage was done. Great description their Sherlock Holmes.

States Attorney: Your honor and damage was done!

Judge: What damage?

States Attorney: You know damage, damage!

Judge: What kind of damage?

States Attorney: The damaging kind!

Judge: To what things?

States Attorney: To the things that were damaged!

Judge: What would those be?

States Attorney: What would what be?

Get real man, are you this desperate for attention?

Fires being set inside city liits is against the law. Fires being set on a city street is against the law. Why is it these people who discovered fire a long time ago, just recently discovvered they have opposbale thumbs. Dont start fires in the street, and dont burn debris in peoples yards.

Please cite the ordinance for the specific municipality citing rubish can not be burned in your private yard.

Evidence of beer bottles being throw is in the articles, as well as the reports that have been released by the County. Again you are cherry picking the info form the articles. Beer bottles were thrown at EMS and at Police. Just because that info doesnt support your Bs argument, doesnt mean it didnt happen, and your attempt to deny that is a joke.

Once again articles are not evidence of anything but a newspaper is being published. They are not sworn testimony and the only thing in the articles is from Police Press Releases that are merely allegations and not fact.

The videos support my argument, non-admissible and third party statements of heresay will not overcome those in a court of law.

Agauin I see you are once agaion showing us your ability to not know what the hell you are talking about. No civil rights were violated. Private property was violated by the 3k students present, and if you knew the law, you would know there are exceptions to law enforcement when it comes to dealing with a situation, including disregarding parking regulations, disregarding the speed limit, the ability to discharge a gun inside city limits, and yes, even the ability to be present on property owned by a person not invlolved in the situation.

You have not established that the owner of the property was not on site, you have not established that anyone on private property was there against the expressed consent of the owner.

You have not established that the dwellings suffered any damage.

The unlawful action came form the drunk students who destroyed city property, who blocked public right of ways, who started fires, and who threw beer bottles at EMS and the Police.

No city property was destroyed it was merely borrowed and slightly modified, the only people blocking the public rite of way were the police in fact, the party had been contained to the lawns throughout the day through rigoruous code encorcement of open containers for anyone venturing into the street with one.

You still have not proven that bottles were thrown at the EMT's and as far as being thrown at the Police the Police certainly had a lot worse to them coming after their violent and unlawful assault on peaceably assembled citizens.

All your rediculous arguments are displaying is that THERE IS NO TRUE PRIVATE PROPERTY in the United States of America.

All of which is in the articles listed, and can be seen in the youtube vidoes posted.

Articles are not admissible but are third party hear say and innuendo. The Videos do not substantiate your gross misrepresentation of occurences.

It would be easier at this point for you to jsut come clean and admit that you hate the government so much that you are willing to use this type of an indident, to spin the information contained to support your argument, and then to outright lie to the people in the thread about what occured.

People need to speak up and out about police brutality and your bias is so well known as to make you a detriment to the cause you are foolishly arguing not an asset.

You dont know the law
You have no idea how those laws work
You have no idea about hw law enforcement operates
You have no clue about case law that governs our use of force and what we can and cant do.

You keep telling yourself that Clarence Darrow.

All you see is your petty argument and lies, and you are desperately hoping that by lieing and continually spinning your answers, while ignoring questions, that people wont see through your chirade...

How you haven't been banned from this site yet I have no idea.

To late.. Leave the thread now with what little diginity you have left, and once you get home, look up the term integrity.. It would be whats missing from your argument by the way you lie when stating your position.

They say if you listen long enough and close enough to people they will tell you everything they don't want you to know.

Here we have "and once you get home".

So you are not at home, but are posting as part of some job.

Thanks for clarifying that.

reply to post by Xcathdra

You cant even explain what excessive use of force is. There was no excessive use of force. I have told you this. There is NO 42USC violations present in the videos.

From a corporate government statndpoint this would be up to an internal revue board and or court of law to decide.

From an individual standpoint an excessive use of force is clearly evidenced in relation to the minimal threat.

The only people who broke the law were the 100 students / non students who were issued citations / have charges pending against them.

This is up to a jury of their peers to decide not you.

Thats our constitution and that you have to keep being reminded that the accused are innocent until proven guilty is absolutely rediculous.

By the way though thank you for supporting my post about you and the other 2 argument style... Now you are in pahse 3 of that, attacking the poster because the evidence is so overwhelming it no longers supports your agenda here, which is to take this situation and turn it into something its not so you can feel better about your soverign citizen BS.

What's the alternative universe like where these fictions occure, are their birds and bees there?

Just wondering?

The reason there is no violations listed for Police by the way, is because their were no violations by the Police. AGAIN, I refer you to 42 USC 1983 to prove my point.

Ultimately it is up to the citizens to decide when the police have exceeded their mandate, and we are far from the point where legal actions might be taken in this particular case.

The wheels of justice the say grind slow but exceedingly fine.

I would imagine that some of these students have parents who are attorneys and well all I can say is good luck to all the armed henchmen of the state taking part in these crimes against the citizens.

After reading through the majority of this thread I have mixed feelings. Both the cops and school adminstration did not want that party to happen in the first place and it might have had something to do with the fact that previous parties were a little too rowdy.

Obviously since everyone knew about it, the cops had plenty of time to organise themselves and protect the neigbhorhood from any incidents. I don't think 100 cops dressed in riot gear is overkill, but I did think so before getting a full picture of what really happened. Thanks to people like xCathadra who don't really know what they are talking about, lots of people will get misinformed and jump to the wrong conclusions. According to most estimates there were at least 2 to 3 thousand attendees so 100 cops is definitely on the low end.

True they were not militias or gang bangers, but when you are outnumbered at that ratio, it can still get very ugly as witnessed at the university of minnesota riots after some hockey game earlier this year. Its better to be slightly over-prepared than greatly under-prepared. Thankfully no one really got hurt or killed in the end from any side of "the battle".

I don't mind criticising the government when I think its wrong and in fact I do quite often, but this time I am pretty sure right wingers with their "natural and unalienable rights" are jumping all over the place trying to get one up on the government. It was uncalled for in retrospect and I will not support it! Its no training mission and why would the state or federal government relly on local law enforcement to bring in tyranny? They are not "elite" enough imo.

Lets call a spade, a spade!

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
There is no evidence that a trash fire can burn and melt metal.

In fact it can't, it needs reinstalled and a coat of paint. three man one hour job.

Send me the bill for pity sake.

Try to stop clubbing innocent kids in the meantime if you can.

So once again you are lying to the people in the thread.. At no point did I say that the trash fire burned the stop sign. I said the stop sign was chucked into the fire. By the way, it was chucked there after students uprooted it from its location. To simply dimississ that actions towards the damage to city property reinforces the fact you have no regard for any law you dont agree with.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Read the thread, its a few pages back, if you weren't so busy trying to figure out how to misconstrue everyone elses argument and spamming the thread with your nonsense trolling you would have read it already.

I am not your secretary.

As I poiinted out in another post, this is your standard circular argument these 3 use when called out. Now they claim to have posted the info, but they dont remeber where and we have to find it ourselves. Its not posted btw.. Nice lie thoughl.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Oh would those be the articles that simply say damage was done. Great description their Sherlock Holmes.

States Attorney: Your honor and damage was done!

Judge: What damage?

States Attorney: You know damage, damage!

Judge: What kind of damage?

States Attorney: The damaging kind!

Judge: To what things?

States Attorney: To the things that were damaged!

Judge: What would those be?

States Attorney: What would what be?

Get real man, are you this desperate for attention?

Your honor, I would be referring to the City Stop sign that was ripped from the ground, and thrown into a fire in the street.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Please cite the ordinance for the specific municipality citing rubish can not be burned in your private yard.

Normally I would respond in kind by saying im not your secratary, but in this case my pleasure -

Macomb Municipal Ordinances
Article 1 - Section 10-2

Sec. 10-2. Outside burning.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to burn any combustible material upon any street in
the city.
(b) No person shall burn any combustible material out of doors within the area bounded on
the east by Campbell Street, on the south by Jefferson Street, on the west by McArthur
Street and on the north by Adams Street and the extension of the south line thereof
eastward from Randolph Street to Campbell Street, unless such material is burned in a
closed incinerator equipped with a flue covered with a spark arrester constructed of
metal screen with a mesh not greater than one-half inch on a side, which incinerator
shall be located at least 20 feet from any building.

(c) It shall be unlawful to build any fire that is not so completely enclosed as to prohibit the
escape of flames, sparks or hot ash when a fire ban has been declared by either the city
council or the fire department.

(d) No person shall burn any garbage, grass clippings, leaves, rubbish or other refuse out of
doors anywhere in the city.

(Code 1972, § 10-4; Ord. No. 2860, § 1, 3-18-02)
Cross references: Authority to ban open burning, § 10-88; burning garbage or refuse which
emits offensive odor, § 11-3; burning rubbish on public ways, § 11-4.

and

Sec. 10-3. Other burning prohibited.
No person shall burn any garbage, rubbish or other refuse anywhere indoors in the city
except in an incinerator complying with all applicable laws and ordinances.
(Ord. No. 2860, § 1, 3-18-02)

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Once again articles are not evidence of anything but a newspaper is being published. They are not sworn testimony and the only thing in the articles is from Police Press Releases that are merely allegations and not fact.

Neither is youtube video, since videos dont always show the entire story.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
The videos support my argument, non-admissible and third party statements of heresay will not overcome those in a court of law.

Youtube video is not guaranteed admission in court since there is NO chain of custody on the video. We dont know if it has been edited, changed, modified, etc etc etc. If you were as smart as you claim about the law, you would know this.

The youtube video would not be admissible in court.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
You have not established that the owner of the property was not on site, you have not established that anyone on private property was there against the expressed consent of the owner.

You have not established that the dwellings suffered any damage.

Nor have you determined they have not. In this case, and as I have stated from the very begining of this thread, that we dont have the ENTIRE pircture, now do we. We need to wait to see what other info comes out, which I know pisses you off because it will undoubtedly undermine your argument.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
No city property was destroyed it was merely borrowed and slightly modified, the only people blocking the public rite of way were the police in fact, the party had been contained to the lawns throughout the day through rigoruous code encorcement of open containers for anyone venturing into the street with one.

I dont think you understand who assinine you sound here. The property, namely a stop sign, does not belong to the students, but the City. It was removerd from its location by force, and thrown into a fire. Its NOT their property to modify, change , damge etc.

No matter how you try to spin that, you sound like an idiot... merely borrowed and modified... Please..

can I borrow and slightly modifiy your car or house? You seem to think this is acceptable.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
You still have not proven that bottles were thrown at the EMT's and as far as being thrown at the Police the Police certainly had a lot worse to them coming after their violent and unlawful assault on peaceably assembled citizens.

I have actually. The article the paper ran had a direct quote from an officer who was on scene who stated beer bottles were being thrown by stuidents at EMS and then Police. The source is cited by name. Feel free to go back and read ther artciles posted, as well as quoted, and you will see it.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
All your rediculous arguments are displaying is that THERE IS NO TRUE PRIVATE PROPERTY in the United States of America.

Ridiculous arguments you say....

I simply borrowed and modified information in the posts... No garm done though since you are ok with that.
/end sarcasm

Once again we are back to this sovereign citizen I hate the Government rants you go on. Please tak it to another forum, this thread is about the riot drunk tudents started and the reason the police arrived.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Articles are not admissible but are third party hear say and innuendo. The Videos do not substantiate your gross misrepresentation of occurences.

Unless the person goes on the record and allows his name to be published. then it can be introduced and the person can be cross examined about his comments.

Again, if you knew anything about the law, you would know this.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
People need to speak up and out about police brutality and your bias is so well known as to make you a detriment to the cause you are foolishly arguing not an asset.

I dont have a bias, and as I stated before, and other posters can verify, Ihave come down on the side against the police in several cases. In this particular case, you are excusing criminal actions by the drunk students, and blaming the police for enforcing the law the students broke.

It goes back to your hatred of the US Government and your warped and misinformed view of sovereign citizen and the laws you misinteprtet to come to your comnclusion.

The simple fact that you have made so many mistakes / lies in this one post about laws and court proceedings should serve as awarning to others not to listen to what you are saying, brecause obviously you have no clue how laws work.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
You keep telling yourself that Clarence Darrow.

I wouldnt have to keep repreating it if I wasnt dealing with a person who has the intelligence level of a Monkey now would I?

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
How you haven't been banned from this site yet I have no idea.

Because my responses are based on fact. I am sorry if you dont liek the facts. I am sorry that you dont like to be called out as a liar in the forums. If you actually had something truthful to share, you wouldnt get this much attention from me. But since you are all about distorting facts and flat out lieing in an effort to support your Soverign citizen I hate the government BS, you will find me.

How you have not been ban, let alone made a watch list somewhere, is beyond me.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
They say if you listen long enough and close enough to people they will tell you everything they don't want you to know.

Here we have "and once you get home".

So you are not at home, but are posting as part of some job.

Thanks for clarifying that.

Put the coolaid down and try that again, because this has made no sense whatso ever, other than to support my other post about the manner you and a few others debate.. This would be where you once again level personal attacks in an effort to discredit the person who is kicking your ass all over this thread by using the truth and understanding the law.

2 concepts that you apprently have no idea about.



On a side note, thanks for the laigh.. You have once again delivered yet another spectacular example of why people like you, and the groups you belong to, are considered fringe. When you decide to apply commen sense, and actually educate yourself about the government, both the State and FEdreral, since you dont seem to know the difference and how law works, get back to us will ya!

Thanks