Special Ops Paintball: OmgItsAFire - Viewing Profile - Special Ops Paintball

Jump to content


OmgItsAFire's Profile User Rating: *****

Reputation: 0 Neutral
Group:
Members
Active Posts:
542 (0.19 per day)
Most Active In:
The Lounge (119 posts)
Joined:
29-December 06
Profile Views:
738,145
Last Active:
User is offline Mar 14 2014 05:37 PM
Currently:
Offline

My Information

Member Title:
Forum Member
Age:
57 years old
Birthday:
June 17, 1957
Gender:
Not Telling Not Telling

Contact Information

E-mail:
Click here to e-mail me

Previous Fields

Latest Visitors

Posts I've Made

  1. In Topic: Well, I got pulled over for the first time....

    29 May 2010 - 09:12 PM

    .
  2. In Topic: Anti war protests?

    16 November 2009 - 06:03 PM

    This link here refers to the same lawsuit. Short summary- the reduced 11 million dollar verdict (to five million) was overturned Sept 24, 2009.
  3. In Topic: Anti war protests?

    16 November 2009 - 05:35 PM

    View PostThalion, on Nov 16 2009, 07:14 PM, said:

    View PostOmgItsAFire, on Nov 16 2009, 05:36 PM, said:

    1. I would have a very difficult time if controlling myself if they were at the funeral of someone close to me. I know for a fact that there are a ton of people with less self control than me.


    2. When the sharing of an opinion is likely to lead to violence, the police have an obligation to try and prevent it. Protesters yelling about dead soldiers and being poop shooters at a funeral is a pretty obvious place for a possibly violent situation.



    1. That's you. You can't assume everyone won't control themselves.

    2. No... police have the obligation to keep general order/peace. They do not have any obligation to any particular groups or individuals. There have been court rulings on this, and the consensus is police do not have an obligation to protect you, the protesters, or anyone else.

    GITW makes a better argument with "keeping the peace."


    1. It is a safe assumption that someone won't be able to control themselves. One is all you need.


    2. Protecting a group of people likely to be attacked is keeping the general order/peace. If they just let an angry mob attack protesters, they obviously aren't keeping the peace. As much as I wish they didn't have to protect them or at least be aware of the situation and have some presence there, they can't just leave a situation with a good chance of getting out of control. It is a lot easier to deter something with a few officers than trying to solve the problem after it started.
  4. In Topic: Anti war protests?

    16 November 2009 - 04:36 PM

    View PostThalion, on Nov 16 2009, 03:06 PM, said:

    View PostOmgItsAFire, on Nov 16 2009, 01:57 PM, said:

    Although what they were doing is terrible, doing that wouldn't work because:
    1. If they do not protect them with police they will be harmed.
    2. They are protected by both the free exercise and free speech clauses of the first amendment


    1. You are assuming that other people are completely incapable of controlling themselves without police presence.

    2. Free speech does not translate into "free police protection while you spout off whatever inflammatory words you want to say." It means you have the right to say what you think without fear from the government.

    The police have no obligation to be there.


    1. I would have a very difficult time if controlling myself if they were at the funeral of someone close to me. I know for a fact that there are a ton of people with less self control than me.


    2. When the sharing of an opinion is likely to lead to violence, the police have an obligation to try and prevent it. Protesters yelling about dead soldiers and being poop shooters at a funeral is a pretty obvious place for a possibly violent situation. 
  5. In Topic: Anti war protests?

    16 November 2009 - 12:57 PM

    View PostMurderDeathKill, on Nov 16 2009, 01:15 PM, said:

    Cops protecting Westboro Church's protests?

    Sounds like government promotion of religion to me. Quick, everybody, write your congressman.


    Although what they were doing is terrible, doing that wouldn't work because:
    1. If they do not protect them with police they will be harmed.
    2. They are protected by both the free exercise and free speech clauses of the first amendment


    They are criticizing the government with the time, place and manner that they feel is best for their message. 


    So unfortunately we just have to live with them.


    What they are saying at the funerals could qualify as "fighting" words (if that happened to someone I know I would definitely go after them)  so it might be possible to at least stop the funeral demonstrations through that.