Bad Boys II

[*bfine32*]

(06-29-2020, 10:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I can't see how it would.  The first amendment specifically states the right to peaceably assemble.  You're not peaceably assembling if you're terrorizing a family in their own home.

Seems the framers knew what they were doing when the included peaceably to a citizen's Right to assemble:

Quote:Definition of peaceable

1a: disposed to peace : not contentious or quarrelsome
b: quietly behaved

No even bringing up the ridiculous notion that I should be able to peaceably assemble in your yard. Many of the public assemblies we've seen lately violate the 1st. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-29-2020, 11:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Seems the framers knew what they were doing when the included peaceably to a citizen's Right to assemble:


No even bringing up the ridiculous notion that I should be able to peaceably assemble in your yard. Many of the public assemblies we've seen lately violate the 1st. 

I've made my extreme distaste for historical relativism known on several occasions.  That said I'll completely agree that owning slaves was an abhorrent thing to do.  Even so, the men who wrote our Constitution and the Bill of Rights deserve every ounce of praise they've ever gotten.  I know it's modeled off of ancient Grecian concepts, but those documents are truly wonders.  

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(06-29-2020, 09:24 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I already said to you in a response that they should be faulted for being on private property in this specific case. 

Speaking hypothetically, though, I don't think family is a shield for a lawful protest against a public official and for that reason I'm not suggesting that protestors shouldn't ever be able to protest in front of a politician's home.

So as long as a politician is unpopular to 50 or so unemployed people with nothing better to do, you're good with people parked outside their house 24/7, while 7am to 10pm (or whenever the local ordinance allows for unrestricted noise) drum protests outside their house? 

(06-29-2020, 09:52 PM)GMDino Wrote: Isn't this much like bringing your kid to a protest?

If you don't want your family exposed to public criticism and protests don't run for office.  I mean no one EXPECTS they will have 100 people protesting in front of their home when the get elected but that's the chance you take.  Why put your kids in that kind of position?  Right?  Because t might not be your home but it might be when eating dinner or out for a walk or "bring your daughter to work day".

That's why I feel bad for the family of people in office much more than the elected official themselves...they better be all in on everything that comes with the job.

So basically what you're saying is...



....and that nobody with children should be allowed to hold public office if they want their children to not be scared, to be able to play in their own yard without worry, and to get a sound nights sleep.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-30-2020, 12:47 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: So as long as a politician is unpopular to 50 or so unemployed people with nothing better to do, you're good with people parked outside their house 24/7, while 7am to 10pm (or whenever the local ordinance allows for unrestricted noise) drum protests outside their house? 


So basically what you're saying is...



....and that nobody with children should be allowed to hold public office if they want their children to not be scared, to be able to play in their own yard without worry, and to get a sound nights sleep.

I'm not 100% sure, but that does appear to be what he is saying.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(06-30-2020, 01:20 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm not 100% sure, but that does appear to be what he is saying.

Also worth noting on your conversation with Bmore. If you are for protesting outside a public official's home, you're also by extension for protesting outside a private citizen's home... because when it's a group of 100-300 people and that public official has neighbors, it's not like the private citizens next to the house being protested is going to appreciate the angry mob just next door to them (or in front of them due to spillover).

Unless on top of not being allowed to have kids, we're also adding "not having neighbors" as a requirement for holding public office.  

[Dill]

(06-29-2020, 05:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/attorney-says-da-rushed-charge-officers-involved-tasing-college-students/Y3RHMIZ2ZNCC7HA723UGEKQS54/

Of course the cases are different.  What is exactly the same is a DA filing inappropriate charges to appease an angry populace.  You literally cannot prove a murder charge against an LEO based on the circumstances of that event.  The bench trial will bear this out.

Ahhhh, and here we have it.  This has zero bearing on whether a law was broken or what crime a person should be charged with.  You essentially just agreed with my entire take on this case without realizing it.

We'll see.  Since they're playing the "didn't follow proper procedure card he almost certainly won't get his job back now.  If he is acquitted I have little hope that you'll actually give me any type of credit.  I am sure you'll be all over it if he doesn't.  I will add this, as I've stated previously, if he goes for a jury trial he's done.  No way an entire jury will vote to acquit in the current climate (which you helpfully pointed out above).  The best he could hope for is a hung jury, but there's zero chance the DA doesn't immediately refile.

I've already seen that link. I was looking for one relating to the Brooks case.

LOL Let's not worry about "credit." If Rolfe is acquitted I will certainly study the legal argument--same if he is convicted of some charge. And then my interest will shift to extra legal consequences, like more rioting, or changes in the justice system. I am not expecting a murder conviction. And I have already stated that no one knows for sure what will happen with a jury trial. (O.J., Zimmerman.) 

I have not agreed that Rolfe acted appropriately, that he'll get off, get his job back, etc.  How do we get from there to "I agree with your entire take"? 

We may agree there is a political dimension to this trial lacking in others, but again our "take" is vastly different. The issue of police accountability/culture has bearing on determination of whether a law was broken and what crime a person should be charged with.  We may be in a moment when the absence of police accountability is itself becoming viewed as "political," no longer normal. A bench trial might increase that risk, if it has the results you predict.

[Belsnickel]

(06-30-2020, 12:47 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: So as long as a politician is unpopular to 50 or so unemployed people with nothing better to do, you're good with people parked outside their house 24/7, while 7am to 10pm (or whenever the local ordinance allows for unrestricted noise) drum protests outside their house? 


So basically what you're saying is...



....and that nobody with children should be allowed to hold public office if they want their children to not be scared, to be able to play in their own yard without worry, and to get a sound nights sleep.

(06-30-2020, 01:20 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm not 100% sure, but that does appear to be what he is saying.

This is reductio ad absurdium at work, fellas. There is a looooooooooong history of people in both parties being down right ruthless with the children of public officials. It's happened at all levels of our government. Them being exposed to a protest outside their residence is tame in comparison to what has happened all throughout our history. All Dino seems to be saying, here, is that it should be expected if you run for office. If you don't want it to happen, don't run, because it's going to happen if you are in office. It's an unfortunate truth, but it is a truth. It's not just because of the divisiveness of the times we live in, it has literally been going on for at least the entirety of the 20th century, if not the history of our nation (I can just think of instances dating to the late-19th/early-20th off the top of my head).

[Belsnickel]

(06-30-2020, 02:09 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Also worth noting on your conversation with Bmore. If you are for protesting outside a public official's home, you're also by extension for protesting outside a private citizen's home... because when it's a group of 100-300 people and that public official has neighbors, it's not like the private citizens next to the house being protested is going to appreciate the angry mob just next door to them (or in front of them due to spillover).

Unless on top of not being allowed to have kids, we're also adding "not having neighbors" as a requirement for holding public office.  

This is just me, but if a protest is on public property and is not a threat to public safety, then I don't care. Protest away. I believe this is the viewpoint of judicial precedent on the matter, as well. But honestly, it's 6 AM, I've been up for an hour, and I haven't made my coffee yet.

[GMDino]

(06-30-2020, 12:47 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: So as long as a politician is unpopular to 50 or so unemployed people with nothing better to do, you're good with people parked outside their house 24/7, while 7am to 10pm (or whenever the local ordinance allows for unrestricted noise) drum protests outside their house? 


So basically what you're saying is...



....and that nobody with children should be allowed to hold public office if they want their children to not be scared, to be able to play in their own yard without worry, and to get a sound nights sleep.

(06-30-2020, 01:20 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm not 100% sure, but that does appear to be what he is saying.

(06-30-2020, 06:57 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is reductio ad absurdium at work, fellas. There is a looooooooooong history of people in both parties being down right ruthless with the children of public officials. It's happened at all levels of our government. Them being exposed to a protest outside their residence is tame in comparison to what has happened all throughout our history. All Dino seems to be saying, here, is that it should be expected if you run for office. If you don't want it to happen, don't run, because it's going to happen if you are in office. It's an unfortunate truth, but it is a truth. It's not just because of the divisiveness of the times we live in, it has literally been going on for at least the entirety of the 20th century, if not the history of our nation (I can just think of instances dating to the late-19th/early-20th off the top of my head).

Thanks Matt.

Yeah, no one WANTS it to happen but it does.

This board had some very upset people that even the word "Baron" was used without it being an attack on the President's son.  As I said in my post I feel bad for the families.  It's one reason I would never run for office.  My wife and kids should not have to suffer because some people disagree with ME.

I wish it didn't happen but it does.  And Matt's 100% right that is both sides.

And I'll add this goes for all kinds of public figures from movie stars to television personalities.  They see their families get dragged through the machine with them whether they like it or not.

[*Nately120*]

(06-30-2020, 07:00 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is just me, but if a protest is on public property and is not a threat to public safety, then I don't care. Protest away. I believe this is the viewpoint of judicial precedent on the matter, as well. But honestly, it's 6 AM, I've been up for an hour, and I haven't made my coffee yet.

Dude, I'm concerned about you priorities. 

[fredtoast]

(06-29-2020, 10:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I can't see how it would.  The first amendment specifically states the right to peaceably assemble.  You're not peaceably assembling if you're terrorizing a family in their own home.

Here is another example of labeling all protestors as "terrorists".  From what I can tell the protests outside the Mayors house were peaceful.

This is not a good case to argue against a protest in front of a private property because the mayor started the problem by giving out home addresses of people that were opposed to her.  You can't complain about people coming to your home when you have put the home addresses of your critics out in the media.

[GMDino]

(06-29-2020, 11:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Seems the framers knew what they were doing when the included peaceably to a citizen's Right to assemble:


No even bringing up the ridiculous notion that I should be able to peaceably assemble in your yard. Many of the public assemblies we've seen lately violate the 1st. 

Police then used pepper spray to clear the park. There were families and kids out in Aurora. It was literally just a violin vigil for Elijah.pic.twitter.com/iLfFBjadta

— Joshua Potash (@JoshuaPotash) June 28, 2020

 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(06-30-2020, 06:57 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is reductio ad absurdium at work, fellas. There is a looooooooooong history of people in both parties being down right ruthless with the children of public officials. It's happened at all levels of our government. Them being exposed to a protest outside their residence is tame in comparison to what has happened all throughout our history. All Dino seems to be saying, here, is that it should be expected if you run for office. If you don't want it to happen, don't run, because it's going to happen if you are in office. It's an unfortunate truth, but it is a truth. It's not just because of the divisiveness of the times we live in, it has literally been going on for at least the entirety of the 20th century, if not the history of our nation (I can just think of instances dating to the late-19th/early-20th off the top of my head).

(06-30-2020, 07:00 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is just me, but if a protest is on public property and is not a threat to public safety, then I don't care. Protest away. I believe this is the viewpoint of judicial precedent on the matter, as well. But honestly, it's 6 AM, I've been up for an hour, and I haven't made my coffee yet.

(06-30-2020, 08:40 AM)GMDino Wrote: Thanks Matt.

Yeah, no one WANTS it to happen but it does.

This board had some very upset people that even the word "Baron" was used without it being an attack on the President's son.  As I said in my post I feel bad for the families.  It's one reason I would never run for office.  My wife and kids should not have to suffer because some people disagree with ME.

I wish it didn't happen but it does.  And Matt's 100% right that is both sides.

And I'll add this goes for all kinds of public figures from movie stars to television personalities.  They see their families get dragged through the machine with them whether they like it or not.

This is reductio ad bothsideum at work, fellas.

I don't give a shit if both sides do it, or how long they've done it, neither should. Unless a minor puts themselves into politics/public forum by their own choice, they should be off limits and your home should be a place of safety. Period. Regardless of your job.

Bels, I am sure you'd be fine with protests in front of homes until it goes in front of your home and your neighbors start to hate you, your HOA (or apartment building) kicks you out, and you find yourself being forced to move every time the protesters find your new address or until you cave to whatever the protests demands are (until a different group of protesters from the opposite side then protest THAT decision).

I'm also sure that both of you will be just as casual and accepting of the shitty nature of people protesting outside homes if sometime in the future there's some news story with photos of a couple hundred angry white people in MAGA hats (or the douchiest of assholes in polo shirts holding tiki torches) start surrounding the private homes of minority politicians. "As long as it's public property, I don't care." - Definitely not Bels at that time.

A private home is not a place for protest, and children should be left out of politics unless they themselves join in first. The end.

[GMDino]

(06-30-2020, 12:08 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: This is reductio ad bothsideum at work, fellas.

I don't give a shit if both sides do it, or how long they've done it, neither should. Unless a minor puts themselves into politics/public forum by their own choice, they should be off limits and your home should be a place of safety. Period. Regardless of your job.

Bels, I am sure you'd be fine with protests in front of homes until it goes in front of your home and your neighbors start to hate you, your HOA (or apartment building) kicks you out, and you find yourself being forced to move every time the protesters find your new address or until you cave to whatever the protests demands are (until a different group of protesters from the opposite side then protest THAT decision).

I'm also sure that both of you will be just as casual and accepting of the shitty nature of people protesting outside homes if sometime in the future there's some news story with photos of a couple hundred angry white people in MAGA hats (or the douchiest of assholes in polo shirts holding tiki torches) start surrounding the private homes of minority politicians. "As long as it's public property, I don't care." - Definitely not Bels at that time.

A private home is not a place for protest, and children should be left out of politics unless they themselves join in first. The end.

Neither one of us said children should be targets or that we are "accepting" of it.

We both said it should not happen...but it always has and that is a risk you take when you lead a public life no matter how wrong we think it is.

[fredtoast]

(06-30-2020, 12:19 PM)GMDino Wrote: Neither one of us said children should be targets or that we are "accepting" of it.

Classic "straw man" argument.  Both Bels and Gmdino said they felt sorry for the kids and it was not a good thing that this happens.  But Leonard does not want to argue against that position so he claims that both are "fine" with it or "casually accepting".

The Constitution allows for people to peacefully protest.  That includes on public property infront of a person's home.  In this case the fact that it was a "private gated" community may have some effct on the lergality, but I am pretty sure that Leonard and Bfine don't care.  They feel that there should never be protests outside of a persons home.  But if I am misrepresenting their poasition I apologize.

To me this case is unique because the Mayor gave out the home addresses of her critics through the media.  To me that ends her right to complain about anyone protesting outside her house.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(06-30-2020, 01:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Classic "straw man" argument.  Both Bels and Gmdino said they felt sorry for the kids and it was not a good thing that this happens.  But Leonard does not want to argue against that position so he claims that both are "fine" with it or "casually accepting".

The Constitution allows for people to peacefully protest.  That includes on public property infront of a person's home.  In this case the fact that it was a "private gated" community may have some effct on the lergality, but I am pretty sure that Leonard and Bfine don't care.  They feel that there should never be protests outside of a persons home.  But if I am misrepresenting their poasition I apologize.

To me this case is unique because the Mayor gave out the home addresses of her critics through the media.  To me that ends her right to complain about anyone protesting outside her house.

Classic "circle jerk" argument.

Quote:This is just me, but if a protest is on public property and is not a threat to public safety, then I don't care. Protest away

That's literally a quote from Bels. If that's not casually accepting or fine, what is? You can't be like "oh it's sure a shame" and then be "I don't care. Protest away." and pretend like you're not supporting the right to protest in front of people's private homes. But Fred does not want to argue against that position, so he just pretends they didn't say that and just focuses on the part where they said "a shame".

[Dill]

(06-30-2020, 11:34 AM)GMDino Wrote:

Police then used pepper spray to clear the park. There were families and kids out in Aurora. It was literally just a violin vigil for Elijah.pic.twitter.com/iLfFBjadta

— >June 28, 2020

If it was what it looks like, then here is another amazing example of police tone deafness to the moment.

Who would order the police to forcibly clear a public space of VIOLINISTS during a time when police overreaction has become national discussion?

Will we hear that the musicians were ordered to leave but "refused to comply"? Thus legalizing forcible removal? Was that space over capacity? Were there "complaints"?

[Belsnickel]

(06-30-2020, 10:45 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Dude, I'm concerned about you priorities. 

I follow the "hydrate before you caffeinate" mantra. I go through roughly 40 oz or so of water before I drink my coffee.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

Related to the conversation, now there's a guillotine set up outside Bezos' house.



Smaller crowd, but just continues my view that private homes should be out of bounds for protests.

[fredtoast]

(06-30-2020, 01:56 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Classic "circle jerk" argument.

I no longer reaspond to comments like this.  Some of us are trying to raise the level of discourse around here.  Hopefully this will save you some timein the future.

(06-30-2020, 01:56 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: That's literally a quote from Bels. If that's not casually accepting or fine, what is?

It is not "casually accepting" becasuse he also said it was an "unfortunate truth.  So he is not saying it is a good thing.  He does not accept it "casually".  Instead he has said it has to be accepted because of the law and historical precedent.

And what about GMdino's comments.  How do you explain your interpretation of his position when has repeatedly said it is not a good thing?

(06-30-2020, 01:56 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote:  You can't be like "oh it's sure a shame" and then be "I don't care. Protest away."

Actually "yes".  you absolutely can.  For example, I am not happy that the KKK has the right to preach their hatred in public, but at ther same time I agree that they have the right.  So it is possible to dislike soimething yet understand that it is legal and going to happen.

(06-30-2020, 01:56 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote:  But Fred does not want to argue against that position, so he just pretends they didn't say that and just focuses on the part where they said "a shame".

The way you worded your comment I am not sure which position you are claiming I don't want to argue.  But I have already made my position very clear.  Here is the direct quote from post #1315


The Constitution allows for people to peacefully protest.  That includes on public property infront of a person's home.


So could you please just stop making stuff up.  It makes it difficulut to have a serious conversation about an issue when yuou refuse to even address what people actually say.