A lesson in police powers

[redgiant]

The next time you're pulled over for a minor traffic violation, e.g., going a few mph over the limit, lock the doors and refuse to hand over your documents or otherwise comply with the officer's directives. In other words, peacefully occupy your car.

What do you think will happen? What do you think *should* happen?

[inademv]

1. Occupiers should know better than to exceede the speed limit

oh wait, you were trying to justify the use of excessive force on people who have broken no laws weren't you.

[redgiant]

4. Can you answer the question? Why evade? n/t

[inademv]

7. No, the question is erronious

you're conflating two entirely different things and asking a leading question.

[redgiant]

9. How is it not analogous? n/t

[inademv]

10. Different setting, different laws

For the vehicle example, if the driver is stopped they are required to hand over their license and essentially nothing else (save for direct yes/no questions that are non-implicating and even those you don't have to answer).

For those at Occupy protests, they are in a public place and breaking no laws. They are not required to have or show any ID (not that they are being asked for such). Furthermore, the police using pepper spray on protestors are not making lawful arrests and in most cases issuing no warning at all, which is excessive force by any state's standards.

[redgiant]

13. For the sake of discussion...

...let's accept your premises.

Now, will you answer my questions from the OP?

[inademv]

16. No, because it is still a leading question

and a scenario which you are conflating with this Occupy protests.

[redgiant]

20. There *are* overlapping considerations

Your refusal to recognize that notwithstanding.

[inademv]

37. In the same way that...

a person who is drown by force and a person who cannot swim might drown.

[sabrina 1]

112. Because someone speeding on the highway is not operating

under the umbrella of the 1st Amendment, or I would like to see someone try to argue that in court.

Occupying a public space under the umbrella of the 1st Amendment is entirely different. There is simply no comparison.

But just to show how ludicrous your attempt to compare the two let me ask you this:

1) A Police Officer answers a call where a gunman is holding people hostage, he has already killed some of the hostages and aims his gun at the PO. The officer hits him with a tear gas cannister on the head, knocking him to the ground and severely injuring him, after which the hostages are free.


2) A police officer aims a tear gas cannister at the head of a peaceful, unarmed protester exercising his 1st Amend. Rights, who is no threat to anyone severely injuring him and then attempts to prevent him from getting the help he needs to get to the hospital.

What is the difference between these two scenarios if any?

Should both cops be prosecuted, or just one, or none?

Or is there any relationship whatsoever between the two? :eyes:

[TBMASE]

18. Failure to follow the orders of the police is disorderly conduct

which is a violation of the law

[Old Codger]

27. Incorrect

Failure to follow "legal" orders may be a violation but for illegal orders there is no violation involved except on the officers part. For instance a LEO cannot order you to do something that is in fact illegal.

[TBMASE]

29. No one was talking about illegal orders

But if a cop tells you to move, you move

[inademv]

39. A cop cannot order you to move

from a place where you are legally occupying.

[TBMASE]

41. What makes it legal? See, in this country the Supreme Court

has said the local jurisdiction has the power to issue permits for legal protests.
If you don't have a permit or permission from the local authority, they do have the power to move you or shut you down.
The police were sent in to break up the protest, 12 students didn't want to comply with the orders of the police. That's disorderly conduct.

[redgiant]

43. Here's the thing...

What can you legally occupy?

Have you been paying attention to the ACLU snippets I've posted?

Here's the thing. Even if you *believe,* an officer is giving an illegal order to move, such as from the street, you should comply unless you are willing to have force used against you or unless you are willing to gamble the cop will back down (often unlikely).

If you believe you have been subject to an unlawful order and resulting use of force, you should lawyer up and challenge in court. If the order and use of force are deemed unlawful, you will likely have all charges set aside, possibly win a settlement, and the cop might face discipline. The discipline would likely hinge on the court's determination of his belief and intent and judgement at the time of the incident.

If the order and use of force are deemed lawful, you can be penalized for the original offense and possibly other charges, such as obstruction.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

92. In other words, you want us to be servile and obedient to illegitimate authority.

Just let them do what they want, and we should accept that. Gotchya.

[TBMASE]

107. How about you follow the rules, apply for a permit or get permission granted

by the university/local government, then comply with the established rule

[sabrina 1]

113. How about considering, as three court rulings so far have done

that maybe when protesters are operating under the umbrella of the 1ST Amendment, the Supreme Law of the land supercedes local ordinances?

See ruling, temporarily in favor of Ows protesters in Nashville, Boston and Cleveland, so far.

The issue has not yet been completely resolved, but a restraining order has been placed on the police in all three cases from arresting the occupiers until there is more clarification of the issue. This IS a 1st Amendment issue and courts are very careful when it comes to these rights.

Maybe people should never been so complacent as to accept the fact that when it comes to their Constitutional rights, local ordinances should not have been accepted IF they restrict those rights.

[Old Codger]

73. If

If you have a legal right to be where you are at the time and there is no other reason to move besides the officer saying move you do not have to do so, if they arrest you for not moving you have a suit for unlawful arrest...

[DisgustipatedinCA]

76. I detest that sort of thinking

I'm not even arguing the legal point with you. But I'm disgusted by the need-an-authoritarian-daddy types of simpering fucks who can't wait to lick a cop's boots. The police work for us. There are lots of police and citizens who need to be reminded of this fact.

[Zenlitened]

84. For The Win. - n/t

[TBMASE]

86. Saying the Police work for you doesn't mean you get to do whatever you like

without consequences.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

102. um....actually, no.

Had I meant that police working for us meant we could do whatever we'd like, I would have said so. Your statement has no basis in logic.

[TBMASE]

106. You said it in response to 12 kids, who were in violation of Campus Rules

and then didn't comply with the orders of the police.

Had they said the police worked for us, would that mean the police were wrong to follow their established procedures to enforce the law?
The police work for murderers and thieves too but it doesn't mean the police should step aside and ignore their responsibilities

[DisgustipatedinCA]

110. No one ever said the police should step aside and ignore their responsibilities

I'm sure these cops would be much less miserable than they are right now had they actually carried out their responsibilities instead of committing crimes. Thanks for playing.

[redgiant]

53. Is this a legal order?

Ordering a group without a permit that is blocking traffic to move out of the way? Is that not a legal order?

[piratefish08]

2. nice try

:rofl:

[redgiant]

6. It's a pertinent question. Why not answer? n/t

[H2O Man]

3. legalize lonnie anderson's hair

[Fumesucker]

5. Welcome to DU..

I hope you enjoy your stay!

:hi:

[redgiant]

8. Why not answer the question? n/t

[Fumesucker]

12. ...

[redgiant]

28. What's the point of that?

While I don't agree with the implied message of the sign, was there something about that which was illegal or required a police response?

[H2O Man]

108. Self-evident

[piratefish08]

11. it's not a valid comparison. you are probably smart enough to know that.

it is fun to watch you apologists squirm for your heroes in blue, though.



YOU are sitting in your car on public property, listening to music and exercising your First Amendment rights. Your hero walks by, sprays pepper spray in your face and drags you through your car window by the hair.

What do you think will happen? What do you think *should* happen?


there. NOW you have a valid comparison.

[redgiant]

17. Clarify

Was I legally parked? Was I given any directives? Did I obey them? Was I warned force would be used if I did not comply?

[piratefish08]

22. this is a bullshit argument. OWS is civil disobedience. There are known and expected

consequences.

Fucking police BRUTALITY is not one of them and crosses a line. You know that.

You also know there is no valid defense for these abusive pigs so you have to resort to silly word game arguments to try and make a point that isn't there.

[redgiant]

26. Let's have a calm discussion

What are the known and expected consequences of civil disobedience?

P.S. I do not condone police brutality.

[Gold Metal Flake]

32. Well, if that's the way it's gonna be...

[katsy]

14. If you are violating the law, there will be consequences.

Pull over and take responsibility.

When people exercise their constitutional right to peaceably assemble... it's their right to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly

No where in the Constitution does it say, you can assemble:

IF it's convenient to the town/city

IF the police allow you to do so

IF you pay a fee

IF you are neat

IF you keep moving

AS LONG AS you don't inconvenience the neighbors

Fuck that noise.

Your question has NO bearing to what is happening at OWS.

If an OWS protestor throws a brick through a window, THAT is a crime. A crime which IN NO WAY prevents the rest of the protestors from peaceful assembly.

If a state makes laws that effectively curb protestors constitutional rights, they will be sued and rightfully so.

Driving is NOT a constitutional guarantee and liable to state laws.

[redgiant]

19. The ACLU says otherwise

Here's a link to an ACLU article about street protests and related issues. It's a good read. The article makes clear that First Amendment protections certainly don't trump all other laws of public order.

http://www.aclu-wa.org/news/street-speech-your-rights-washington-parade-picket-and-leaflet

[redgiant]

21. Note. Article re Washington state, but...

...I've seen identical points in more universal articles. I'm trying to locate some of them.

[katsy]

24. Interesting read. Common sense restrictions.

It doesn't necessarily invalidate what I stated at all.

But your premise is false. The right to peaceful assembly isn't comparable to driving violations.

[TBMASE]

25. I hate to break the news to you but SCOTUS has ruled on Assembly Rights

And local governments can require permits to assemble

[katsy]

31. Edited

There are restrictions.

The constitutional right to assembly can not be compared to a traffic violation. Apples and oranges.

The right to drive is not a Constitutional right. A State can deny a drivers license and make laws regulating driving or take the right away. Not so with with first amendment rights. States can regulate but not deny.

[redgiant]

35. But, there *are* limits...

...and when those limits are overstepped, it can become a matter of illegal activity. Yes, that is what civil disobedience is, but a police response should not be a surprise.

From a Florida ACLU pamphlet (these are all easily googled):

"Demonstrators who engage in civil disobedience — peaceful, but unlawful, activities as a form of protest — are not protected under the First Amendment.

If you endanger others while protesting, you can be arrested. A protest that blocks vehicular or pedestrian traffic is illegal without a permit.

You do not have the right to block a building entrance or physically harass people.

The general rule is that free speech activity cannot take place on private property, including outdoor malls, without the consent of the property owner. You do not have the right to remain on private property after being told to leave by the property owner."

A common example.

A large march, especially on a major street, would likely and lawfully require a permit.

Without a permit, marchers would rightfully be required to stay on the sidewalk.

Police would have the right, even a duty, to enforce the laws and keep protesters out of the street with verbal orders, police lines, barricades, etc.

Persons violating the above would reasonably expect to be forcibly moved off the street and/or arrested.

Persons who resist moving off the street, e.g., sitting and locking arms, can be subject to force to effect arrests, including pain compliance.

[inademv]

40. And you would be hard pressed to find

scenarios where the Occupy protests meet ANY of those criteria for provoking police action. Furthermore, the kind of police action we've been seeing at them is wholly beyond what is warranted by the protests, especially the pepper spraying of students sitting in a courtyard.

[TBMASE]

42. Unless you were there you can't possibly know what the scenario was

[inademv]

44. That doesn't make me wrong

[TBMASE]

45. Doesn't make you right either

[inademv]

54. And in the absence of proof one way or the other

the aggressors (the cops) are in the wrong.

[TBMASE]

62. So without any knowledge of what preceded the incident you assume

the cops are wrong.

Ridiculous

[inademv]

66. Since the only evidence at hand is

a cop pepper spraying an unarmed, passive, and in several cases recently quiet protestor; you bet your ass I assume the cop is in the wrong. Here's a hint, the police are not are YOUR side.

[TBMASE]

68. I don't have problems with police

[inademv]

69. If you want to keep it that way

Don't even try to achieve justice or fairness. You'll only get a face full of pepper spray and the same casual disdain that you've shown here.

[TBMASE]

70. I'm pretty sure those kids got the justice they deserved

and it could have been avoided if they'd just listened to the orders given by the police.

From what I've read, they set up tents on campus. The Chancellor ordered them removed, the students didn't comply.
The peaceful protestors were seeking to obstruct the police in doing their job.

Now, either you believe that 12 kids have the right to dictate policy on the campus or you have to go with the Chancellor's and the Police. The kids were warned that they would be maced and arrested if they didn't comply, they chose to sit there.

There are plenty of OWS camps in the area, if they REALLY wanted to stand with the OWS, they didn't have to do it on the campus of the college.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TBMASE]

79. I'm sure you believe 12 people should be able to dictate the policy of UC Davis

but, in the real world there are consequences for taking actions that are against the rules. Those kids learned valuable lessons 1) Pepper Spray is unpleasant 2) when the police say they are going to use it, there's a 100% chance they will 3) When you hold an unsanctioned protest on a college campus don't be surprised if the police show up.

Now how you get from 12 idiots breaking the law to Auschwitz would require one to make believe state sanctioned murder is the same as breaking up an unlawful protest.

[inademv]

80. "unsanctioned protest"

Yeah, no. UC Davis is a state school and the 1st amendment doesn't get abridged by submissive stains like yourself. The protestors were there well within their rights. The only area of the incident that you can even pretend to rationalize is whether or not the use of pepper spray was justified (it wasn't).

Good job going Godwin in here, makes it easier to identify you as a RW troll whose mission in life is to dumb down conversations and make a complete ass of yourself.

[TBMASE]

85. SCOTUS has ruled on limits to the 1st amendment, specifically with

regard to permits. You can shriek about the first amendment all you like, but without a permit or permission they had no right to set up tents on a college campus.
If members of the KKK decided to set up a protest on UC Davis, without permission, you wouldn't be whining about pepper spray or their first amendment rights.
There are rules and there are consequences.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

77. They're paid to be liars

Why on earth would you choose to believe any police force when it came to a question of he said/she said? I'd really like to know what compelling reason you have to trust people whose job description includes lying.

[TBMASE]

88. Because it's not a he said/she said.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

103. you're right

it's actually more a case of he said (police) vs. she said (800 camera phones recording the incident). Looks like the abusive little pigs are liars, in addition to being abusive pieces of human excrement. And they're liars who have been suspended and are likely to lose their jobs. Because they're liars. And they're abusive with the powers that were entrusted to them. Because they work for us, no matter whether they and you seem to have forgotten that or not. Enjoy your pigworship.

[TBMASE]

105. Those videos do not show the entire incident

d

[DisgustipatedinCA]

111. right. All the students colluded to NOT record the parts that exonerated the cops

So you're alleging a giant criminal conspiracy on the part of ALL the students present. Again, thanks for playing; your analytical services are no longer required.

[redgiant]

65. That absolutely does not follow

Where did you pull that from?

[redgiant]

60. Really? Do you know this for sure?

Most people are reacting to brief video clips or pictures that are a very narrow snapshot of a time and place.

What is the total scene not visible in the clips/pics? What were all of the actions of all the parties leading up to the incident?

[inademv]

67. Bullshit

the assumption of provocation on behalf of the protestors is based on absolutely nothing. Even the police in these incidents are not citing specific provocations which they feel warranted them to use pepper spray; just saying things like "they were non-compliant" or "they were unruly" and it is people like yourself that err on the side of those with power (the police in this case) who make it that much harder to get the truth through the lies and bullshit of shout-towers like Fox News.

[TBMASE]

90. If the KKK were there doing the same thing, I'd be here saying the same thing

If the KKK decided that it wanted to set up tents on UC Davis to protest something, would you be here defending their first amendment right to spew their hatred and lies via their protest or would you be siding with the administration in breaking up their little on campus party?

[redgiant]

91. You know the answer to that

...as well as I do. The students would be leading the call for the administration to break up such a KKK demonstration that mirrored the Occupy actions.. And, they would be right to do so.

The Supreme Court has said that restriction on the right to speech and protest have to be content neutral. In other words, if sidewalk picketing is allowed for Cause A, the same right has to be accorded Cause B. If extended occupation and camping on campus is allowed for OWS supporters, it would have to be allowed for any other group of students, including undesirables like the KKK or whomever.

[TBMASE]

93. Yes but how how manu DUers would be supporting the police

the same police they're now vilifying today>

[redgiant]

96. Probably more than a few

would support heavy-handed police action against protesters who were supporting causes they found odious. That's my point.

There's no way of knowing for sure how the anti-cop DUers would react, but it's hard to believe it wouldn't be different. Can you imagine if a contingent of UC Davis students who supported the goals of the Tea Part, e.g., or any other right wing cause had taken up the tactics of OWS; if they had refused administration directives to remove their tents and disband; if they had dug in against police efforts to move them? Would the cops still be branded pigs and fascists?

Remember the "Affirmative Action Bake Sale" held on some campus a while back, and the indignation it aroused here? Do you think voices would have been raised in defense of their 1A rights if the cops had shut them down? I doubt it.

[GoneOffShore]

15. Silly question - You're comparing artichokes to aardvarks.

[Tsiyu]

23. A lesson in regulatory powers

Write a worthless check for $1000 to your local grocery store, while reaching over the counter to grab a few grand for your self from the cash register.

What do you think will happen. What do you think *should* happen?

[Old Codger]

30. You will

Probably be arrested and car impounded, may lose driving "privileges" for a period of time to be determined by a judge or maybe preset by law in whichever state you happen to be in at the time. Totally different laws and circumstances involved here. In most states it is required to show drivers license, registration, and proof of insurance.

[redgiant]

33. But, but...

I've locked my doors. How will I be arrested? I'm being totally passive and non-compliant.

[Old Codger]

74. Best way to find out

Is to try it, but be prepared to go to jail, and pay to have windows replaced and pay for impound fees.... they are not acting in any way illegally by asking for a drivers license, that is well within their rights, you can get out of car, lock doors and do whatever you must do, you can refuse to allow them to search your vehicle if you choose but if you lock the doors and refuse to show drivers license you will most likely be arrested, they can easily break the windows and pull you from the car if you resist they will definitely take you into custody and impound the vehicle.. so good luck with that one... good idea to have attorney on speed dial also.

[zalinda]

34. What will happen is that he will

put the ticket under the windshield wiper, and walk away, the same as if you illegally parked. He has done his duty, and filled part of his quota. The next part is up to you.

zalinda

[redgiant]

36. You're kidding, right? n/t

[Supply Side Jesus]

46. there is no such thing as a quota, thats illegal

civil wars have erupted in department when a new chief/sheriff starts saying the Q word

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[redgiant]

47. As well as law-breaking apologists. n/t

[Supply Side Jesus]

48. and DU has it's hysterical anarchists "the rules should only apply to others" children

[redgiant]

50. Wouldn't it be fascinating...

...to see how the DU civil liberties advocates would react if the Tea Party had adopted the exact same methods as OWS?

[Supply Side Jesus]

57. i could care less

but the tea party occupiers would last only till The Dukes of Hazzard started on tv


tea party....thinking we are getting to the truth of this thread

[H2O Man]

82. Yep.

Seems that way.

[Zenlitened]

89. The Tea Party is based on fear and submissiveness. Not likely to happen.

But even if it somehow did, the debate would still hinge on WHY they were demonstrating.

On what their IDEAS are. And, by and large, their ideas are shit and garbage.

Their first impulse is not to challenge authority, but to lick its boots.

Sad but true.

[RoccoR5955]

49. Police would be right in ticketing you while in your car because

DRIVING is not a right specified in the Bill of Rights.
Freedom of Speech, and Freedom to assemble ARE.
Your question smells to be that of a troll.

[redgiant]

51. Your reply smells like...

...ignorance of what is and is not permitted when exercising the right to speech and protest under the First Amendment, and when engaging in civil disobedience.

[Supply Side Jesus]

59. "Gee Officer, I'm only selling drugs to children as a form of protest"

next step in your logic

[Locrian]

52. Oh! Can I play: You get pulled over

You're pulled over for a minor traffic violation, e.g., going a few mph over the limit, you lock the doors and refuse to hand over your documents or otherwise comply with the officer's directives. In other words, peacefully occupy your car.

The cop pepper sprays you but the windows are up.

He pulls his gun and shoots you thru the window, killing you, and your 7 mo old baby.

Was the cop justified? Was it right?

What do you think will happen? What do you think *should* happen?

[redgiant]

55. What an hysterical reply

Can you do better? I bet you can if you try harder.

[Supply Side Jesus]

58. let idiocy reign

tow the car

[redgiant]

63. Actually, I don't think you can do that

They can't/wouldn't tow a car while occupied.

The answer to my OP question is that the driver would be extracted from the car and arrested. Yes, warnings would be given, but the driver would be extracted if he/she did not comply with the lawful requirements of a traffic stop. If you refused to show the pertinent documents, you would be asked to step out of the car. If you refused to exit the car, it's likely that a window would be broken, the door/s opened, and the driver extracted by force. That could include the use of pepper spray.

The justification is not the specifics of the original traffic violation, but the failure to comply with lawful orders and obstruction.

Even if you had a sincere belief that the original offense, the speeding, was wrong (I don't think I was speeding so I'm not going to comply) it's not a legal justification for non-compliance.

[Supply Side Jesus]

64. i would tow it occupied or not

[Supply Side Jesus]

56. this has to be one of the dumbest threads I've seen in awhile

When you drive a vehicle, you are subject to a different set of laws, they are usually called "Traffic Code." Now when you start getting involved in civil disobedience actions, those law would be called "criminal code." States will also divide these into "titles."

When you drive on a public roadway you must comply with certain requirements. License, current registration and valid insurance. So if you fail to comply and claim to only do so as a form of protest, will NEVER fly. As great as ACLU is, they do not make the laws. You are probably better off getting arrested for blocking traffic, the punishment will not be as severe as driving without license, registration, and insurance.



What would I do...

tow the car for proof of ownership.

[H2O Man]

61. You ignore Lonnie's hair.

[EFerrari]

72. ...

[H2O Man]

75. Finally!

Someone who dares to tackle the toughest issues.

Thank you!

[Morning Dew]

71. Where's the lesson?

[bemildred]

81. Did you have some point to make, or are you just looking to dump on other people? nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

83. CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

it's giving you fits I see.

[redgiant]

98. Not at all...

I hope you'll take the time to read this.

I understand exactly what civil disobedience is and what it can accomplish and what it has accomplished historically. What is interesting to me is the stance of the whiners who seem to think civil disobedience won't have logical consequences, personally, to those who choose that strategy.

By its nature, civil disobedience is outside the protections of the First Amendment. I have posted several references to ACLU sources that have outlined some of the activities which may cause protesters to expect a police response. One common example is marching in a street without a permit. Such marching would be a reason for police to attempt to contain marchers to the sidewalks, or to move or arrest them if they do not leave the street. Orders to move out of the street or orders to remain on the sidewalk are lawful orders. Those that disregard those orders are subject to arrest or use of force. Police have the lawful right, even a duty, to use reasonable force in such enforcement. There are lengthy policies in every police department that detail the continuum of force and when and under what circumstances force along that continuum may be applied. One of those first pepper spray incidents we saw in NY where the women were sprayed on the sidewalk inside the barrier was found, I believe, to be outside the policy. Each use of force has to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

One of the methods, lawful methods, that police can employ in making arrests that are resisted or in moving people who are refusing to move is pain compliance. There is no magic pixie dust that they can sprinkle to cause people to comply peacefully if they will not. Pain compliance can include such things as simple as various kinds of grips and holds on limbs and joints. An example of this would be the common maneuver of bringing the subject's arm up behind his back to force them to move along. It can include striking with fists, baton, or other blunt force instruments. That continuum also include pepper spray and tasers. Consider the need to remove people who have linked arms, such as to block a street or an entrance, or to make removal from an area difficult. Linked arms are extremely difficult to defeat without the use of quite potentially harmful force. It would often require the use of very painful use of batons, fists, and joint holds. Pepper spray has been shown to be effective alternative to striking. No, I have not been pepper sprayed and have no desire to be pepper sprayed. I'm sure it's extremely painful--as it's designed to be--but almost always results in no lasting effects. The use of tasers is, in most cases, I believe, further up the continuum. Tasers are generally used when the person being arrested is much more violent and threatening to the officer's safety and may be the last option prior to drawing a lethal weapon.

One thing is certain, if you disobey the orders of an officer, you can and should expect arrest or use of force, depending on the form your resistance takes. If you believe the orders are not lawful orders, you have the right to legal action against the officer and/or department. Simply declaring to the officer that his actions are unlawful will not shield you from the consequences.

Despite the comments that claimed my non-compliant motorist example is apple to oranges, it really isn't. Though the original infraction is different, the salient issue is the refusal to comply with lawful police orders. The order to step out of a vehicle and the order to move off of a street are equally valid. The refusal to do so will likely result in arrest and the necessary force to effect that arrest. The motorist *would* be extracted from the car. Most likely, after several warning, one of the windows would be broken, the doors unlocked, and pain compliance, including pepper spray if needed, used.

[Zenlitened]

87. If you feel you must ask permission to protest, you've already lost.

Thankfully there are plenty of other people ready, willing and able to stand up and fight the good fight.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

95. He/She Shoots, He/She Scores! n/t

[rug]

94. Somehow, I suspect you're just bursting to type pepper spray.

[redgiant]

99. Please see #98 n/t

[RetroLounge]

97. A lesson in Civil Disobedience

You really love to lick cop boots, dontchya?

:puke:

RL

[redgiant]

100. Please see #98 n/t

[RetroLounge]

101. Please see the US Consitition

:eyes:

RL

[mmonk]

104. What's the lesson?

[Quantess]

109. School us, professor. What's your lesson?

That RWers love to use poorly fitting, half-assed analogies?
If that's your lesson for today, I already knew that. I've watched Glenn Beck enough to know that.