Which is why I think they held the protest at the Governmental Center.
Prince Frederick "March" 6-1 AAR
- Thread starter Hessian
- Start date
LightRoasted
If I may ...
If I may ...
In addition, part of "the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" is, by nature, and can be somewhat defined as, "disturbing the public peace and/or by exhibiting disorderly conduct" (absent violence or destructive behavior). It is that action, guaranteed, enshrined, in the Constitution, that gets the attention of those in government.
Again. There are no attachments, or qualifications, of, when, how, or where to, "the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances". Sitting peaceably in the middle of the road while in assembly and petitioning, is covered. Not listening to, or following the command of a government official, is covered. Start throwing rocks at windows, setting fires, damaging or destroying government vehicles or buildings, different story. But ignoring a command to stop, "the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances", is violating the Constitution.
In addition, part of "the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" is, by nature, and can be somewhat defined as, "disturbing the public peace and/or by exhibiting disorderly conduct" (absent violence or destructive behavior). It is that action, guaranteed, enshrined, in the Constitution, that gets the attention of those in government.
General Lee
Well-Known Member
So basically kiss their a$$ and say please don't tear up Leonardtown. No, it was just the type of people in the crowd that wanted to remain "peaceful" despite what "Antifa" supporters tried to do. If the the protestors wanna riot, they will riot, period.
Sheriff Evans stayed true to his oath of office and protected potentially life and property by nipping it in the a$$ before it started. Just like Sheriff Grady Judd would do .....
watch
Last edited:
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Another way to look at it, and I know this is a crazy concept, but let's assume the Police serve and protect a community. One would assume all people in that community are treated with respect and with the understanding that the citizens, all citizens (even those they may disagree with), have the right to protest actions of their government. One would assume a police force dedicated to understanding and developing a good relationship with a community would strive to have a level of empathy that allows them to see that prior to rolling out the SWAT dudes, the crowd was peaceful and likely wanted their voices heard by a government they do not feel represents their interests. Any gun owner can attest to that feeling. Anyone who cares about govt. deficits and spending can attest to that feeling. Anyone who truly cares about civil liberties for all Americans can attest to that feeling.
Evans, or any elected Sheriff, should be open to at least making protesters and folks not happy with the way he is doing his job (however right or wrong those people may be) feel like he is listening at the time, and not just put that in his canned statement to the public. That's not kissing ass, it's a sign of a leader, IMO.
Last edited:
The qualification is absolutely there. And that is found with the term "peaceably". SCOTUS, in Hague v. CIO stated, “The privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the streets and parks for communication of views on national questions may be regulated in the interest of all; it is not absolute, but relative, and must be exercised in subordination to the general comfort and convenience, and in consonance with peace and good order; but it must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied."
General Lee
Well-Known Member
You're missing the point about ALL of this. This has NOTHING to do with not wanting people to be heard about injustices. Its about having the balls to step in when enough is enough. So far what I have seen nationwide is the rioters are being allowed to burn cities down. Blatantly committing felonious crimes while police are having their hands tied behind their back. Sheriffs, police Chiefs, Governors, mayors (the list goes on) not having the balls to deter and stop the crime. Thats is exactly what Sheriff Evans did, he deterred crime and stopped the destruction of property. That is a sign of a leader.
Last edited:
Goldenhawk
Well-Known Member
Oh, seriously.
Wanting to march up the street is "enough?" What danger was there at that point? Just a clock ticking a bit past the top-o-the-hour. Heck, the march in Leonardtown was far more "dangerous" in that sense, in that it was smack in the middle of the governmental complex, where a dangerous crowd could have quickly made a real mess of the courthouse or police barracks or library.
No; in my view, Cameron did what Evans should have: he let it go on peacefully without trying to shut it down just because some permit time had expired. At the point the goons stepped in with their riot gear, there was not really any danger yet. Evans made it escalate unnecessarily.
I looked.
What am I suppose to see?
Hank
my war
The Evans hater are likenthe Trump haters. They never got over Kontra losing.
I have voted for Mike every term since his first... I call it like I see it. Bad look.
Fair enough.
I really think he called it right by not letting that group AFTER the peaceful march call the shots. I agree with GL - that he was showing leadership.
LightRoasted
If I may ...
If I may ...
Ya know something? Fu*k SCOTUS. The Article, aka the 1st, is written in simple language. If there are those, that do not, "peaceably assemble", then take care of those individuals. But leave the other, "peaceable" bodies alone.
LightRoasted
If I may ...
mitzi
Well-Known Member
The one tonight went extremely well.
Goldenhawk
Well-Known Member
And then there were TWO peaceful marches in St Marys, where both nights the very large crowds hung around long after the permit expired. And Sheriff Cameron let them be, even mingled with them, didn't line up a Brute Squad, didn't try and force them back down the street, didn't argue with the people shouting a few anti-cop slogans or Antifa chants, just let it all roll off and chill out. And at the end of tonight, a bunch of people were very happy with how the night ended, again.
"Called it right" but got much worse results? Gotcha.
No, you may not ...
Ya know something? By saying "Fuk SCOTUS" you are really saying "Fuck the Constitution". Can't have it both ways SweetPea. There is only one amendment within the Bill of Rights that says "shall not be infringed" and it isn't the 1st. Everyone knows there are limits within a civil society (well, apparently not everyone).
As to those that "peaceably assemble", once the event was over (as agreed to by the organizers of said event and the local governing body) they should have disbanded and left as was agreed to. The failure to adhere to the allowable limits upon the assembly moved it from peaceful to disruptive.
The deliberately obtuse refuse to acknowledge that just because they don't agree with the laws, doesn't mean they can refuse to comply with the law without consequence.
You can refuse to comply all you want. There are consequences when you do.
LightRoasted
If I may ...
If I may ...
Also, many of the decisions are baffling in of and of themselves judging cases Constitutional, when, with a cursory reading of the plain text of the Constitution, on the face, Justices violate their oath to uphold the very Constitution they are basing their decisions deeming something that should be judged Unconstitutional. (Interpreting. Translating. Deciphering.) In attempts to justify their voting positions saying something is Constitutional when very many times that are not. Or visa versa. That why I say, "Fuk SCOTUS". They no longer protect the Constitution, or the rights and liberties of the people. There are no limits to a person's inalienable rights. None. Rights, cannot be restricted, curtailed, or licenced, or are subject to time limits. What you may be referring to are an individual's responsibility to act accordingly within society. Peaceably assemble and petition the government all you want. Sit quietly with a sign in the middle of a public street with a group of others. Harm the person or property of another while doing so, get arrested and go to jail. Bear arms, when and where you want, responsibly. Unsheathe that firearm for a purpose other than defense. To wave it around. Point it at others to simply scare. Discharge it indiscriminately. Get arrested. Go to jail. It is called personal responsibility, Ken. Perhaps you are blinded to the slope so tall it's way past being slippery. It has become now a nearly vertical cliff. Perhaps you do not have the fight in yourself to guard and cherish that liberty founding and rights enshrined document called the United States Constitution? Perhaps you are satisfied with your conditioning to accept what is straightforwardly wrong, just to get along? Perhaps you fear, freedom itself?
Yes I may. The Supreme Court was, is, supposed to hear every case brought before it by Americans asking to be heard. Yet, for more than 90 years, the Supreme Court has had very wide discretion to control its own workload, allowing it to shape the development of the Constitution and American law at its own pace. That is the result of Congress’s passage in 1925 of the workload-easing “Judges Bill.” During all of those decades since, and still today, it has not been true that anyone had a guaranteed right to have their case decided by the nation’s highest tribunal. And the baffling part for many Americans is that, most of the time, the court simply does not explain why it refuses to hear this case or that.
Also, many of the decisions are baffling in of and of themselves judging cases Constitutional, when, with a cursory reading of the plain text of the Constitution, on the face, Justices violate their oath to uphold the very Constitution they are basing their decisions deeming something that should be judged Unconstitutional. (Interpreting. Translating. Deciphering.) In attempts to justify their voting positions saying something is Constitutional when very many times that are not. Or visa versa. That why I say, "Fuk SCOTUS". They no longer protect the Constitution, or the rights and liberties of the people. There are no limits to a person's inalienable rights. None. Rights, cannot be restricted, curtailed, or licenced, or are subject to time limits. What you may be referring to are an individual's responsibility to act accordingly within society. Peaceably assemble and petition the government all you want. Sit quietly with a sign in the middle of a public street with a group of others. Harm the person or property of another while doing so, get arrested and go to jail. Bear arms, when and where you want, responsibly. Unsheathe that firearm for a purpose other than defense. To wave it around. Point it at others to simply scare. Discharge it indiscriminately. Get arrested. Go to jail. It is called personal responsibility, Ken. Perhaps you are blinded to the slope so tall it's way past being slippery. It has become now a nearly vertical cliff. Perhaps you do not have the fight in yourself to guard and cherish that liberty founding and rights enshrined document called the United States Constitution? Perhaps you are satisfied with your conditioning to accept what is straightforwardly wrong, just to get along? Perhaps you fear, freedom itself?
Really? Is that in the Constitution or is that what you think it should be? Don't think so. If it did there would be no need for inferior courts, would there?
While I can agree with that sentiment I fail to see the connection to the issue at hand, which is peaceful assembly versus what is not peaceful. The matter has been ruled upon in the case I cited earlier. The fact that you do not agree with that decision is not relevant.
They most certainly can and are impacted all of the time. For instance, lets take a look at two of these "inalienable rights", life and liberty. Life can and is taken for certain heinous crimes either by being put to death or imprisoned without possibility of parole. Liberty is taken away far more often upon conviction of various crimes and in many cases prior to conviction if the person is deemed a threat to others while awaiting trial or is a threat to flee prosecution. So at least be realistic in your notion of what can and cannot happen with regard to inalienable rights.
Also, I am neither blind, fearful, nor ignorant to reality.