@awc I was responding to the comment that you made above. I think everyone was “invited” by the selling of tickets to the general public. I think we disagree on whether the event was a “public” or “private” one. This rally was open to the general public by the offering of tickets. In my view it is therefore a “public” event. There were no special invitees and the pavilion is located on the campus of a public university.
While I think there is a right to counter-demonstrate at these events, I think those rights end when the demonstration unduly interferes with the event. So I will agree with you that there are limits, and certainly preventing a speaker from being heard is violating their rights. But because of the atmosphere in the pavilion, T made a decision not to appear. The videos pretty much illustrate that the disruption was on both sides, so you really can’t hang his non-appearnce on the counter-demonstrators alone.
Let’s not compare a presidential candidate rally to a veterans’ funeral. This candidate has openly insulted millions (really over half the US population) and doubled down on it time and time again. Then been thin skinned and promoted violence when small numbers of protesters came to future events. I think we haven’t seen anything yet in the size of protests against this candidate and their message.
@baseballmom --the thread’s intent is to discuss the police reaction to protests. That is not a political argument.
I think what this is really about is how and to what extent people can react to the speech of others. Such as, is violence, whether by government officials or by bystanders, an acceptable reaction to speech one doesn’t like. And to what extent one can be held responsible for the actions of others if one insights them, or pays their legal fees (probably already answered–not much.)
IMO, this isn’t so much political as it is a commentary on something that is going on in society today. It doesn’t seem much different than the numerous other threads about racial profiling and related police issues.
No one is debating the candidate’s politics. Instead, we are talking about the culture that this candidate seems to create and the outcome of that.
No, garland, the intent of the OP is not either of the two intents you list.
This intent, as stated by the OP is:
“Yet another question about police behavior with respect to black versus white people.
Note: please keep this about the police behavior, not about the event that this occurred at.”
How many posts are about police behavior with respect to black versus white people?
How many posts have alluded, whether directly or indirectly, to how this candidate’s words are responsible for the actions of protestors and attendees at his campaign events?
IMO, many of the posts in this thread are political and, if so, according to CC rules, are not allowed. That determination, of course, is up to the moderator at his/her discretion.
Every person whether a protestor or an attendee at an event is responsible and accountable for their own behavior.
If it is crossing limits to where it is interfering with an event taking place and preventing it from taking place peacefully I don’t think that is right. Personally if an event took place where the discussions were not my beliefs I wouldn’t try to disrupt the event. I just wouldn’t attend. I feel everyone has the right to their own beliefs and value system but they can’t impose those ideas on others. Make your voice heard by voting.
Attending an event with the intention of disrupting it is not right. Nor is it right to attend an event and attack those who don’t have the same value system you do. Let the security deal with those issues.
Those who choose to attend this type of event have a right do so without having to worry about safety.
If you go with bad intentions then be prepared to face the consequences of the actions of security personnel.
Some may claim that it is “free speech”; others may claim that it is an openly verbal insult; still others may claim it could be borderline racial profiling/slur. Who is to decide what kind of verbal action this is, for all sides (the candidate, his supporters as well as the protesters)? Should the interpretation be done by the supreme court judge? I definitely do not trust ANY candidate or his/her constituents to interpret it because they all tend to bend the fact to their advantage.
I even think the same police could behave differently if this event happened in the other candidate’s rally. Their judgment at that moment was likely unconsciously influenced which crowd is more “dominant” there.
In today’s world where the media is everywhere and what is happening is broadcast instantly, if candidate/supporters/protesters say or do something, do they have the same right of saying it in their own private homes? (In Mitt Romney’s case, his 47% comment in a private event was spread like fire, and it had a grave consequence.)
This has nothing to do with black and white and this is why there were few, if any, posts about that. This was clearly about whether the behavior of attendees and protestors crossed some line.
Insulting people is free speech; attacking someone or invading their personal space is not free speech. There is a universe of difference philosophically and in the law.
If people do not like what they hear, they should learn to control their behavior and deal with it. Life is rift with things we all rather not hear at one time or another. Not sure how one exists by reacting like the protestors. That is giving someone a whole lot of power over you. Why would anyone give such power to someone else? Beyond me.
It is not there were protesters; it was there were protestors disrupting the proceedings inside the venue and harassing attendees as they arrived. For example, the protestor who jumped the barrier and tried to get up on the stage. And the protesters standing at the entrance shouting “racists” at people entering and pointing fingers in their faces. Those actions can quickly cross a line - see comment below from my chief of police.
If a rally attendee openly attacked a protestor without provocation or without feeling threatened then that person should be charged with assault. However, if a protestor is shouting at then steps up into his/her face and essentially is spitting on them and waving a finger in their face when speaking, the person has a right to push the protestor back and defend themselves as deemed necessary.
I discussed it with my chief of police at the gym this afternoon. He noted that it was clear the problem was the protestors were not keeping the required safe personal distance from attendees and are invading people’s personal space. He also stated that the police would have dutifully cleared all protesters from inside the venue if requested by the organizers, as that is the law. And would have cleared them from outside as well if the protestors were deemed to be invading people’s personal space as they entered.
Not sure why they think so, but protesters are not allowed to go up and shout in people’s faces without expecting pushback - the law allows for self-defense at that point.
What is happening is really simple - people are not taking being bullied by others anymore based on their exercise of free speech and opining on their ideas. And the problem for the protestors is that the words spoken thus far is protected speech, but their protesting behavior is not protected the way they are carrying it out.
I went to a code pink march in DC ages ago. At one point there were “protesters” exercising their first amendment right to scream in our faces at a very close distance. There’s no way any of us would have expected to police to arrest one of them if we punched them or pushed them down the block! That is not defense.
I’m curious how many others have been part of a protest.
I was part of the “unruly mob” that protested restrictions to women’s reproductive health in 2013 at the Texas Capitol while the Legislature was in session. Wore an orange T-shirt, chanted at the appropriate times in various venues but wasn’t ever arrested. I wasn’t one of the few who disrupted proceedings in the actual Senate, but I was at the Capitol in the basement when they managed to stop the legislation. It was such a scene.
Anyone else take part in any kind of demonstration?
Not only that, in some American male subcultures such as the one which predominated my formerly White/Hispanic dominated working class NYC neighborhood, reacting to someone shouting at you…even if it’s invading your space/yelling at you but who otherwise didn’t actually imminently threaten to/actually physically assault you(minimum of a punch) would not have been viewed as “self-defense” or justified in their eyes.
If anything, with the exception of fighting words, it would have been considered the reaction of someone who was thin-skinned at best, someone who can’t maintain the expected minimum level of self-control, or a sign of potential mental instability.
Something which would be viewed as a serious weakness/character flaw to be fixed by fathers and older male neighbors/peers in the neighborhood.
That’s not to say the subculture was kumbaya…far from it.
It was more the idea that being subjected to harsh words…including being yelled at…even in your face or having one’s space invaded short of imminent physical assault was something which should be met with restraint or disengagement by walking away…not a justification to initiate a physical assault on the verbal provocateur.
However, the actions of the police in how they (apparently poorly) handled the situations, like ignoring the punching incident until it was later pointed out to them or the throw down arrest of the reporter for no apparent (original) reason, leave something to be desired.
In the punching incident, does anyone think that the puncher’s action was justified or excusable, and thus the sheriffs’ initial non action was appropriate?
Certainly not justifiable in the male subculture of my old NYC neighborhood. Sucker punching someone is clearly an act which would make someone an aggressor and thus, 100% wrong.
I actually think that if the police is in the rally for people in the other extreme (i.e., the rally for those who are labeled as communists by this rally), the police may behave similarly - do things to please the majority of the crowd there. (This is why it is so important to have the law to protect the minority at least to the basic human right level.)
In the case of the CBS reporter, the police’s (or security person’s) action was not justified either (and he is likely being racially profiled.)
I may be oversensitive here: If I were in that kind of rally, I would not feel safe myself. Too many people are “too high” there. Actually, I heard that it may not be wise for some minority people to attend a certain kind of “concerts” (that was held in some non-urban area) where there are few minorities attendees. With the high alcohol and even drug consumption in such a “concert”, it could bring out the worst of some people who are sane in their daily life. A poorly run “rally” may have some similar element of this - some people there may be just “too high” and enjoy their “macho” moments (i.e., no reasoning is needed) as if they are the only group in the country who are among the most “morally correct”, and those who disagree with them is immoral or something inherently “wrong” with them, and should be damned. This is the last place where I will ever want to be especially in the current political environment.
Protestors are clearly in powerful denial in that they are the only ones breaking the law, while thinking they have some right to act like they do.
No person, black or white, gets to protest like this without pushback from the people they are protecting against.
So far, every law enforcement and every legal person I have talked to have said that it is the protectors who are breaking the law and acting out of bounds. Even if they (protestors) did have a point, their behavior is making them lose whatever high ground they might have had. There is no glory or winning in that scenario.