Arrest, Search, Seizure, Warrant cops en masse seizing private citizens property and detaining them how is that

[KCGirl]

I saw this some time ago and I was offended at the heavy-hand of the cops. I'm interested in feedback because most people I showed it to (damn liberals) didn't have a problem with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Smw9QuH1xkA

When you look at this in light of what Freddie Phelps gets away with, hate language and not five blocks away.

I continue to not understand our "justice" here.

 

[CdwJava]

Without knowing what statute the officers were enforcing, or their justification for the contact, it's hard to say.

If the property they were on was not entirely public, then they might have been trespassing.

If this is entirely truthful, then the parties involved need to raise this as a legal issue. There are organizations that would take this on their behalf.

 

[KCGirl]

Thank you for your opinions and information.

Since one of them said that they were not inside the festival itself and were told they must be FIVE BLOCKS from the Arab festival in order to hand out their literature, I would assume that they were on a public street and that no similar location would do unless it was FIVE BLOCKS from the festival.

It also seems to me to appear a bit much to send ten or so cops to take care of two guys doing nothing more than handing out literature and filming an event.

I also wonder how they are able to seize the camera of someone filming a public event. What if they had seized the camera of the person videotaping Rodney King's arrest? Or anyone else who has exposed wrong doing. its a dangerous precedent.

What do you think of these kinds of suppression versus the open field given to Freddie Phelps, who if you are familiar with his history, has the annoying habit of delivering messages of hate regarding gay people and service members especially since the place he chooses to demonstrate is almost always at the funeral of a service member who was tragically killed in the mid-east.

One of his favorite sayings i cannot repeat in totality as its too offensive but its: GOD HATES F*gs.

It has been held that he has a right to picket with all of his relatives and fellow "church goers" as he sees fit and that to try to curtail his activities is depriving him of free speech. Several of the church members, mostly all relatives have educated themselves in the law and have law licenses and whenever the opportunity arises they file suit against those who interfered.

In once case which was outrageous was that the father of a deceased service man was ordered to pay a significant fine to Phelps because of his failure to accept Freddie and klan interrupting his son's funeral.

It's hard to defend free speech in cases like that but if it would threaten ours by removing his right to speak then what?

But I think I'd have gone to jail before I'd pay him a cent were I that father who was fined for speaking out against Phelps.

p.s. I love crescents! :blush

 

[irish223]

Without knowing what statute the officers were enforcing, or their justification for the contact, it's hard to say.

If the property they were on was not entirely public, then they might have been trespassing.

If this is entirely truthful, then the parties involved need to raise this as a legal issue. There are organizations that would take this on their behalf.

Check this out:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,534301,00.html

 

[KCGirl]

Check this out:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,534301,00.html

Thats interesting because in the tape the camera was seized and I'm not sure how someone with a camera is blocking any public access or why they confiscated it. Also according to the video they were told that they could distribute literature but it must be five blocks away.

I find this comment interesting in light of the fact that the face they attempt to put on this is that there is no prejudice yet an official is almost bragging about this, and also its hearsay/opinion stated as fact:

"It is unfortunate that we have another Christian person who is not welcome here, but the Christian community here -- believe it or not -- has told George Saieg that he is not welcome."

So, on the one hand a spokeman says they are treated the same as any other group and then on the other hand they say they are NOT WELCOME HERE. Interesting. So the city officials kept this Arab Christian group out and detained them because another Christian group doesn't like them. Since when are public officials supposed to conduct popularity contests when deciding public policy?

Also interesting contradiction:

She added that members of Arabic Christian Perspective were free to preach on the sidewalks, just not to distribute materials.

"They were free to go throughout the crowd and talk with people at any time. They were just prevented from distributing materials, which was a public safety issue -- they could block vehicle and pedestrian traffic."

So I guess the same number of people on the streets preaching doesn't block traffic while an identical number handing out literature does block traffic, or so it would seem.

And this where it seems based on hearsay evidence without an opportunity to submit their version of the truth, city officials followed the wishes and implied directive from ARAB AMERICANS to keep this ARAB CHRISTIAN group out lest they convert their young people. Were the young people complaining? Did they try to abduct the young people so they could be hidden away and brainwashed? I thought we could not discriminate on the basis of religion? Because the ARAB AMERICANS do not approve of the activity of ARAB CHRISTIANS the city discriminated against the ARAB CHRISTIANS:

"They are very aggressive. A lot of our participants felt that they were trying to convert the younger generation, and THEY DID NOT APPRECIATE THAT," Fey Beydoun, the executive director of the American Arab Chamber of Commerce, which organizes the event, told FOXNews.com.

If a comparison could be made to another injustice once condoned by Americans, that of racial prejudice, it would be totally unacceptable and no doubt loudly and rightfully protested against if a group of White Americans said they did not like the way Black Americans talked or acted or their kind of music didn't agree with them then the White Americans, based on that, would be justified in saying No Black Americans allowed???? You don't think there would be righteous indignation?

Interesting, the Law Professor appears to agree with my views:

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh said allowing religious groups to rent stalls did not preclude them from distributing literature on the sidewalks.

"The existence of an option to rent a stall doesn't let the city take away a group's right to leaflet," he said. "Leafleting can reach a broader audience than the stall can, since leafleters can walk around.

One more zinger. Without any proof and based just on opinion it is alleged: THESE GUYS (Arab Christians) are fearful about Shariah Law being created in the U.S but Muslims are not here to radicalize or evangelize in the U.S.?? Maybe not, maybe they (Muslims) are just here to take control of who can and cannot peacefully assemble anywhere near them? How can it not be discrimination based on religion when its clearly stated unequivocally: SAIEG'S PHILOSPHY AND HIS IDEAS ARE NOT WELCOME HERE:

"Just look at the conclusion of these guys -- that Muslims are trying to create Shariah Law in the U.S., [which creates] fear with Christians. But Muslims are not here to radicalize or evangelize the U.S. ... [Saieg's] philosophy and his ideas are not welcome here.


I could go on and on finding more indications of bias and prejudice based on religion but I think its pretty obvious and people can read for themselves and decide. I like freedom of choice, to read and then decide how we feel about it. I don't want JUST MY VIEWS acknowledged.