Protesters Threaten Children Of DHS Employees

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Protesters swarmed around Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen's home Friday, besieging her family, chanting “no justice, no sleep," and playing the cries of immigrant children on loudspeakers, The Washington Times reports.

Other DHS employees were warned that there have been credible threats made against both them and their children in a system-wide email that also went out this weekend from the department's deputy secretary, which also included a list of emergency services and security protocols along with information on how to access the department's security force.

"This assessment is based on specific and credible threats that have been levied against certain DHS employees and a sharp increase in the overall number of general threats against DHS employees -- although the veracity of each threat varies. In addition, over the last few days, thousands of employees have had their personally identifiable information publically (sic) released on social media," the email said.


Protesters Descend On DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen's Home, Threaten Children Of DHS Employees


You Do NOT have the Right to disturb someone at home, threaten their family and vent your spleen in their front lawn
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
You Do NOT have the Right to disturb someone at home, threaten their family and vent your spleen in their front lawn

I don't understand how they get away with this. Normally it would at least be called "public disturbance" and the rioters would be dispersed, by force if necessary. So why are Leftists being allowed to just run amok and do as they please?

We need to do away with these pop-up "protests" anyway. It's fine to voice your displeasure and bring awareness to your cause; what's not fine is to take over cities or neighborhoods and force others to accommodate you. Getting violent is definitely not fine.
 

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
I don't understand how they get away with this. Normally it would at least be called "public disturbance" and the rioters would be dispersed, by force if necessary. So why are Leftists being allowed to just run amok and do as they please?

Because most of the places these things are happening are urban areas controlled by the same Nazis.
 

JustACitizen

New Member
You Do NOT have the Right to disturb someone at home, threaten their family and vent your spleen in their front lawn

To say that someone doesn't have a *right* to do something is to suggest they broke the law in doing so.

What law? Specifically.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
I don't understand how they get away with this.

Never have understood.
Apparently if you're Peter Fonda - and you say you're SORRY - it's fine, all is forgiven and Josh Fox and Nancy Sinatra will praise you.
If you're Roseanne - you become a leper.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Try Google.

So you have no idea either.

I know I don't work for you.

But this could be a service. For a small fee, you can google it for him. He can pay online with PayPal.

Hell, the law(s) he's looking for can be easily found because there are several quite prominent ones that pretty much everyone (except apparently JAC) knows offhand. So you could make, say, $20 for a few seconds of work.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
To say that someone doesn't have a *right* to do something is to suggest they broke the law in doing so.

What law? Specifically.

Lazy git, that took all of 30 seconds

https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/virginia/va-code/virginia_code_18-2-418

It is hereby declared that the protection and preservation of the home is the keystone of democratic government; that the public health and welfare and the good order of the community require that members of the community enjoy in their homes a feeling of well-being, tranquility, and privacy, and when absent from their homes carry with them the sense of security inherent in the assurance that they may return to the enjoyment of their homes; that the practice of picketing before or about residences and dwelling places causes emotional disturbance and distress to the occupants; that such practice has as its object the harassing of such occupants; and without resort to such practice, full opportunity exists, and under the terms and provisions of this article will continue to exist, for the exercise of freedom of speech and other constitutional rights; and that the provisions hereinafter enacted are necessary in the public interest, to avoid the detrimental results herein set forth.


Of course, this is the state that basically fomented the rioting in Charlottesville by not properly maintaining control the competing groups. So, yeah, seems like a pretty easy pick.
 

JustACitizen

New Member
Sorry kids, but I saw the video of those protests and no one that I could see was on private property. That law doesn't apply to public property.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
Sorry kids, but I saw the video of those protests and no one that I could see was on private property. That law doesn't apply to public property.

I dont see any language that restricts this law to private property....... I do see the below, "before or about" which cetainly seems to apply to sidewalks and such.

before or about residences and dwelling places causes emotional disturbance and distress to the occupants; that such practice has as its object the harassing of such occupants;

And the Supremes seem to agree with us. The below was written by Justice Sandra Day O'connor

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2012/02/outtabounds.html

One important aspect of residential privacy is protection of the unwilling listener. Although in many locations, we expect individuals simply to avoid speech they do not want to hear, the home is different. "That we are often 'captives' outside the sanctuary of the home and subject to objectionable speech . . . does not mean we must be captives everywhere." Instead, a special benefit of the privacy all citizens enjoy within their own walls, which the State may legislate to protect, is an ability to avoid intrusions. Thus, we have repeatedly held that individuals are not required to welcome unwanted speech into their own homes and that the government may protect this freedom....

The type of picketers banned by the Brookfield ordinance generally do not seek to disseminate a message to the general public, but to intrude upon the targeted resident....Their activity....inherently and offensively intrudes on residential privacy. The devastating effect of targeted picketing on the quiet enjoyment of the home is beyond doubt...

The First Amendment permits the government to prohibit offensive speech as intrusive when the "captive" audience cannot avoid the objectionable speech. The resident is figuratively, and perhaps literally, trapped within the home, and because of the unique and subtle impact of such picketing is left with no ready means of avoiding the unwanted speech





Here's a good read on the history of it all. I find it ironic that a lot of this case law was centered around pro-pife folks deciding to picket doctors houses. Which I dont support.



https://scholarship.law.campbell.ed...com/&httpsredir=1&article=1032&context=fac_sw
 
Last edited:

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
I don't understand how they get away with this. Normally it would at least be called "public disturbance" and the rioters would be dispersed, by force if necessary. So why are Leftists being allowed to just run amok and do as they please?

We need to do away with these pop-up "protests" anyway. It's fine to voice your displeasure and bring awareness to your cause; what's not fine is to take over cities or neighborhoods and force others to accommodate you. Getting violent is definitely not fine.



unless its Tiki torch bearing white people right?
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
I dont see any language that restricts this law to private property....... I do see the below, "before or about" which cetainly seems to apply to sidewalks and such.

If they are in the public street or sidewalk there isn't much the police can do.

Same with reporters you see them harassing grieving families all the time. Why don't police hose them down or shoot them with rubber bullets?
 

JustACitizen

New Member
I dont see any language that restricts this law to private property....... I do see the below, "before or about" which cetainly seems to apply to sidewalks and such.

State law cannot supersede the Constitution. No way in hell this law can be enforced upon gatherings on public property.
 
Top