Westboro Church Protest Mega-thread

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I hold people in roles of authority to a higher standard of conduct, and these police officers have failed to achieve it. That department deserves every penny of the lawsuit they're going to invariably lose over this.

Well then, lets just march those guilty bastards in, shall we?

Why is it those who whine, cry and generally wring thier hands about "rights" are always the first to trample those who do their best to uphold them?
Pathetic,  just 100% pathetic.

Bruce

 

[Edward Campbell]

Law enforcement cannot pick and choose which rights it will protect. The US Supreme Court, on 2 Mar 11, decided that WBC protests at the funerals of US military members are ”... entitled to 'special protection' under the First Amendment and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous."

Now, I happen to believe, but no court, to the best of my knowledge, has yet to agree, that our right to privacy ought to extend to a decent “space” around which we can conduct our  most personal rituals – including burying family members. I think that the WBC's right to free expression – free from amateur hour interpretation by LEOs – conflicts with families' rights to privacy. If a court ever holds that to be true then the LEOs will have to find ways to allow the WBC to express itself, openly and publicly, no matter how outrageously, without intruding into the private 'space' of the families. Now, some (many?) will argue that's what they did in this situation. And maybe they did, but if they did then they, sworn Law Enforcement officers, thumbed their noses at the US Supreme Court and that sort of conduct is, at the very least, unprofessional and is, in my opinion unacceptable and indefensible.

Law Enforcement does not get to pick and choose between my rights and your rights. If LEOs want to do that they can take off their uniforms, put away their guns and warrant cards, go to law school and become judges. Until then they have a sworn duty to uphold the law, all the laws – as decided by the US Supreme Court for US LEOs.

 

[Petard]

There seems to be a very big assumption being made that the police did not have reasonable cause to interview these people. We don't know that, or even if their intent was to thwart them from protesting at the funeral.
All we have is a post from an article that seems to be as reliable as any blog.

A bit of research can reveal a whole lot of the garbage about what the WBC stands for. Their activities though, in particular of protesting at private funerals, has resulted in some states enacting laws prohibiting their kind of activity from disrupting the dignity and solemnity of the occasion, either by distance, time, or both, but still respecting their right for free speech. In some of these state laws it is a felony to protest in the manner the WBC has protested. A few of the WBC members have been convicted of breaking these laws, usually for protesting too close to the funeral itself. In some cases they were convicted for what amounted to tresspassing.

Their earlier activities skirted around the edges of what the protection of free speech allows. Their tactics have escalated somewhat recently. The group needs to be able to sue for damages in order to sustain itself. This escalation of activity, looks to me, why many of these states have enacted the laws they did.

Since the WBC has members that fly out of state to conduct their activities, it is a reasonable assumption some may have participated in protests in states in a manner that is a felony to do so, and could very well of been under investigation or indicted for those acts when they went to this funeral.

I don't know why the police brought those people in for questioning, but it would be very reasonable to under the grounds they were suspect in illegal activities before; who knows for sure?

But in the end, from the information provided so far, we really don't know why the police officers involved brought them in for questioning.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

As I said, given the way the WBC raises funds, I would certainly expect that the LEOs didn't take the approach they did without the thought of repercussion or in a wholly cavalier nature. I'm pretty sure they felt they were on solid legal ground before doing what they did.

In the end though, as Petard says, until something substantial can be acertained as to exactly what happened, we're chasing our tails berating each other for our views.

 

[ModlrMike]

As I said, given the way the WBC raises funds, I would certainly expect that the LEOs didn't take the approach they did without the thought of repercussion or in a wholly cavalier nature. I'm pretty sure they felt they were on solid legal ground before doing what they did.

I think that it's a Federal offense to leave one state in order to commit an offense in another, even if the action wouldn't be a crime in one's home state. Perhaps this was the grounds the police used to question the WBC folks? There may be an interstate statute that was contravened at some point?

 

[Red Devil]

I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way. The local police don't get to pick what is "common sense". They don't get to choose what laws they'd like to ignore, or which rights it makes "sense" to suspend. The only ones who get to do that are the duly elected representatives of the people, keeping in mind whether or not any such law would survive a constitutional challenge. After all, isn't it often "common sense" to not bother getting a warrant to search the homes of known drug dealers?

Firstly, I think you're being a little naive if you don't think there is a human element to any and every situation involving law enforcement personnel. Hence they are constantly using common sense just like you and I in our daily works situations.

Secondly in reference to your comment which I've highlighted in red - ARE YOU FOR REAL??????

 

[bwatch]

Without the men and women who these people are against, they would have no rights at all. It is because of the people they are against,  they have rights. I guess the people of Westboro forget this. It's like biting the hand that feeds them.

 

[Nauticus]

Then I suggest before you start making judgements and spouting off about who's rights are being violated, you delve deeply into what a bunch of disgusting, litigious assholes the WBC really are. Police are there 'To Serve and Protect" and I believe they did just fine in that aspect.

Although I agree that the WBC is the absolute scum of the earth, having a knowledge of their background for context should not and should never be a requirement to determine "who's rights were violated". The answer is: WBC's rights were violated. It's not our place to care what they do or say.

With that said, I also mentioned they are the scum of the earth, so I wouldn't be in any hurry to get up and do anything about their rights getting trampled on.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Although I agree that the WBC is the absolute scum of the earth, having a knowledge of their background for context should not and should never be a requirement to determine "who's rights were violated". The answer is: WBC's rights were violated. It's not our place to care what they do or say.

With that said, I also mentioned they are the scum of the earth, so I wouldn't be in any hurry to get up and do anything about their rights getting trampled on.

Now I'm starting to get pissed,...were you even fuckin' there and/ or in on what was investigated?  If not then STFU about who did what to whom.


If you require remedial thinking check Edward's last post and read how he uses proper wording to convey that "if" things happened then, etc, etc,......

 

[Neill McKay]

Then I suggest before you start making judgements and spouting off about who's rights are being violated

Hardly "spouting off".  But anyway:

you delve deeply into what a bunch of disgusting, litigious assholes the WBC really are.

The point, which others have expressed more eloquently than I can, is that it doesn't much matter who they are.

I've done some reading about them and I join the majority here in condemning them.  Based on what I've read they're awful people who deserve all sorts of nasty things.  My impression from the article quoted above is that the police may have acted improperly in holding for questioning people who they did not, in good faith, believe had committed any crime.  It would be wrong to do that, however good their intentions and however unsavoury their "suspects".

As you've mentioned elsewhere, this group doesn't seem to have any shortage of legal talent and the police may very well have made sure to have all of their Is dotted and Ts crossed, and I hope that's the case.  But it's interesting how many people here seem to feel that the end would have justified the means even if the police were known to have colored outside of the lines.

 

[jollyjacktar]

But it's interesting how many people here seem to feel that the end would have justified the means even if the police were known to have colored outside of the lines.

Whys should that be interesting?  As humans, on the whole, most people enjoy seeing assholes coming up short.  Why should many of us be any different?  It's a character flaw of mine that I do, guilty as charged.  I would throughly enjoy any plague of biblical proportions that might afflict these WBC things.  This will do nicely for a start.

My impression from the article quoted above is that the police may have acted improperly in holding for questioning people who they did not, in good faith, believe had committed any crime.  It would be wrong to do that, however good their intentions and however unsavoury their "suspects".

And that is the point that some of us here have made, there is no smoking gun to point that they did act improperly either.  You Neil, and others are jumping at conclusions where none may exist.  The decision appears to been made to "convict and pillory" the police department by some members of this forum without the benefit of clear evidence or trial.  For all the tub thumping about rights being trampled by overzealous police personnel who have apparently left their professionalism at the door, I find it "interesting" that there are many pots to call the kettle black out there by virtue of demonizing a group of people who may not have committed a crime....... irony, no?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I'll try be a little more clear.

All you people defending the rights of the WBC have to stop.

You weren't there. You do not know the circumstances behind the questioning. You don't know what their law allows. You don't know what the District Attorney gave as instruction, and a whole bunch of other stuff you're not privvy to or cognizant of.

In short, all you are doing is wrongfully speculating based on your own beliefs and OUR Charter. The only information, which is no where near enough, that you have, is from one personal blog. Hardly the thing to be building a civil right violation case on.

Relax and pull in your horns. All you are doing, right now, is stating your personal opinion on an incident you really know nothing about. An opinion, in this case, that holds no weight because you don't have the facts.

 

[Edward Campbell]

My comments are embedded.

I'll try be a little more clear.
Well, if you insist ...

All you people defending the rights of the WBC have to stop.
Wrong! The WBC has rights, and the USSC just reaffirmed them, in case there are people out there who still do not understand that people have rights even if you (and maybe even I) do not like them very much. Those defending the rights of the WBC are in the right; you are mistaken and on morally soft ground.

You weren't there. You do not know the circumstances behind the questioning. You don't know what their law allows. You don't know what the District Attorney gave as instruction, and a whole bunch of other stuff you're not privvy to or cognizant of.
True, and valid, but not, even remotely, related to the WBC's rights, which exist, and require protection by the state and all its minions, no matter how reprehensible some may find their beliefs and actions.

In short, all you are doing is wrongfully speculating based on your own beliefs and OUR Charter. The only information, which is no where near enough, that you have, is from one personal blog. Hardly the thing to be building a civil right violation case on.
Agreed, but, unrelated to any general discussion of the fact, and it is a FACT, that rights only matter when we defend those who we find most distasteful. We have no need for "summer soldiers" when protecting rights is concerned.

Relax and pull in your horns. All you are doing, right now, is stating your personal opinion on an incident you really know nothing about. An opinion, in this case, that holds no weight because you don't have the facts.
But it's the internet ...    ... and you have no facts either - none to suggest that those who think the police misused their authority are wrong.

 

[Gimpy]

I'll try be a little more clear.

All you people defending the rights of the WBC have to stop.

You weren't there. You do not know the circumstances behind the questioning. You don't know what their law allows. You don't know what the District Attorney gave as instruction, and a whole bunch of other stuff you're not privvy to or cognizant of.

In short, all you are doing is wrongfully speculating based on your own beliefs and OUR Charter. The only information, which is no where near enough, that you have, is from one personal blog. Hardly the thing to be building a civil right violation case on.

Relax and pull in your horns. All you are doing, right now, is stating your personal opinion on an incident you really know nothing about. An opinion, in this case, that holds no weight because you don't have the facts.

So then are you fine with saying the same thing to the people supporting the actions of the police officers without all of the facts and it being an incident that no one here knows nothing about? If this is the case then I'm not certain why this thread remains open because there is nothing to discuss and this was really just an exercise in futility from the get go due to the weakness of the original posting.

 

[the 48th regulator]

As an aside, Louis Theroux did a fantastic documentary called The Most Hated Family in America.  In it he shows a behind the scenes look at the whole clan.


This year he followed up with America's Most Hated Family in Crisis which shows the family slowly imploding because of it's twisted view of life.

I recommend watching both to get a true sense of what this crowd is about.

dileas

tess

 

[Edward Campbell]

As an aside, Louis Theroux did a fantastic documentary called The Most Hated Family in America.  In it he shows a behind the scenes look at the whole clan.


This year he followed up with America's Most Hated Family in Crisis which shows the family slowly imploding because of it's twisted view of life.

I recommend watching both to get a true sense of what this crowd is about.

dileas

tess

Their reprehensible beliefs and conduct are, precisely, why they need and deserve the protection of the law - of the state and its servants. You and I do not need a whole lot of extra protection - we do not exercise our right to free conscience and expression by offending almost everyone. The WBC does; but it's expression is, specifically, protected - that's an order to US law enforcement from the US Supreme Court.

Just as the only good Christian is the one who defends Christopher Hitchens' and Richard Dawkins' right to preach atheism, and the only good Jew is he or she who defends Ernst Zündel's and David Irving's right to propagate their nonsense, so the only good government official is the one who protects the WBC's right to insult the rest of us. And the good official doesn't defend the WBC because the Supremes said so; he defends their rights because they, those rights, exist for all of us - even the worst of us, and he does so because defending those rights - even for the worst of us - is the highest calling of a public servant.



Edit: typo (double word)  :-[

 

[GeorgeD]

A few made it to the funeral but were ushered away to be questioned about a crime they might have possibly been involved in. Turns out, after a few hours of questioning, that they were not involved and they were allowed to go on about their business.

I might be misunderstanding this part but it seems to me it was voluntary, does not say they were arrested. I'm entirely sure but Police Officers, can question people without arresting them, and those same people can REFUSE to be questoned. For the Officers to arrest them they need a cause and I'm not sure they would do this without one. To me it seems they went in, asked to question them about a possible crime, and the WBC voluntarily went to be questioned.


Also it is my understanding freedom of speech is not absolute as there are restrictions on it. In this case, the WBC spread rumors that were knowingly false, as it is kinda hard to prove that the parents of the Dead Marine raised him for the "devil" as well taught him "to defy his Creator, to divorce, and to commit adultery". Freedom of speech was designed to protect individuals from undue persecution due to their beliefs, in my view, it was NOT designed to protect people who use their speech to attack innocent bystanders.

This animals are picketing funerals for anyone, weather it military or not. People that died in a bridge collapse, because they dislike the city those people lived in.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Well, whether I'm right or morally bankrupt, I'm done here. I just can't get that excited about whether these dufusses were treated right or not. I'm also not going to spend anymore time trying to explain where I'm coming from, nor do I really care if someone else looks at me with a jaundiced eye because of what I believe.

To quote our own, "I'll now retire to Bedlam"

 

[the 48th regulator]

Edward, RC,


I have no argument in this.  I just wanted to post some good documentaries done by Louis Theroux....I apologize if my post was interpreted as me siding with the WBC.

I could really care less if their "rights" were violated, or not.  I can not stand what they do, or what they stand for, and I certainly don't wish to argue the minutiae of what the law enforcement did in this incident.


dileas

tess

And as I have said before, I too shall retire to Bedlham...

 

[Nauticus]

Now I'm starting to get pissed,...were you even ******' there and/ or in on what was investigated?  If not then STFU about who did what to whom.


If you require remedial thinking check Edward's last post and read how he uses proper wording to convey that "if" things happened then, etc, etc,......

Simmer out and cut the condescending tone. This is a message board and posters on said message board should be allowed to present their opinions in a professional, and reasonable, manner. Which is exactly what I did.

You're "directing staff". I expected better from you than to throw a temper tantrum because you disagree with something I post.

Here's what we know: WBC has the right to peaceful protest. We also know that they were knowingly denied that right. Whether the LEO acted lawfully or not, I'm not debating that. I am stating that, based on the information provided, it appears to me that the WBC were denied their right of peaceful protest. Don't get your panties in a bunch, because nobody else is.

Re-read my post. The history of the WBC holds absolutely no relevance to whether or not they should be allowed to practice their right of peaceful protest. We do know that they were unable to do so.