Political protesters now threatened with jail time if they don't get permission slips

[rambone]

4th sentence of the article.

If you guys support protest permits, great for you. I'm not lying about the damn article though.

Trutanich said in an interview that recent demonstrations, conducted without permits, had cost the city thousands of dollars for police response and disrupted traffic. Organizers of illegal protests should face consequences, he said.

 

[Benny]

4th sentence of the article.

If you guys support protest permits, great for you. I'm not lying about the damn article though.

This is pure speculation(just like the OP), but could it be possible permits are needed so large groups of people can crowd an already cramped area, allowing roads to be shut down and detours made?

Is it also be possible that when protesters don't allow time for the city to deal with such large crowds and they end up blocking the streets and cause the city money, they should be punished?

Or, ya know, maybe this too:

When police ordered the protesters to disperse, they refused.

Yes rambone, this is all about permits and nothing more.

 

[rambone]

When police ordered the protesters to disperse, they refused.

Yes rambone, this is all about permits and nothing more.

Really, Benny.... Those worthless citizens weren't obeying ORDERS to not assemble! Wow that is a totally different scenario! In that case, arrest them, arrest them all! Lock them in jail for a year for not obeying their ORDERS. Don't they know they are in the military?? How silly of me to forget: We serfs are all subservient to orders! If they feel like nullifying our right to assemble, then who am I to criticize it? I'm with ya Benny. Screw the 1st amendment. Those scumbags should have paid for assembly permits and then this never would have happened. USA! USA! USA!

 

[Benny]

Really, Benny.... Those worthless citizens weren't obeying ORDERS to not assemble! Wow that is a totally different scenario! In that case, arrest them, arrest them all! Lock them in jail for a year for not obeying their ORDERS. Don't they know they are in the military?? How silly of me to forget: We serfs are all subservient to orders! If they feel like nullifying our right to assemble, then who am I to criticize it? I'm with ya Benny. Screw the 1st amendment. Those scumbags should have paid for assembly permits and then this never would have happened. USA! USA! USA!

You may have missed why they were ordered to disperse, but that isn't surprising.

The protest snarled rush-hour traffic on Wilshire Boulevard for hours. When police ordered the protesters to disperse, they refused

But go ahead and break my previous post down and only point out the only sentence that remotely fits your agenda...That is, if you don't use it in context.

 

[rambone]

Open carrying can snarl traffic. That doesn't stop it being an inalienable right.

Which amendment says we have to follow orders or be arrested?

What is your agenda, Benny? Is it just trolling me, or is it defending progressive laws in general?

And again, the assembly permit is unconstitutional and the article clearly says that the liberal mayor wants to push its enforcement and punishment. Surely protesters who pay a tax wouldn't snarl traffic.

 

[level.eleven]

Don't protests have to cause some level of discomfort? If not, just send an email.

 

[Benny]

Open carrying can snarl traffic. That doesn't stop it being an inalienable right.

Should we also be allowed to just stand in the middle of the road, blocking traffic for hours on end?

Which amendment says we have to follow orders or be arrested?

So, you decide to go to Chucky Cheese without your pants on, once you get out of jail, would you get on here to ***** because you got arrested for not following orders?

What is your agenda, Benny? Is it just trolling me, or is it defending progressive laws in general?

And again, the assembly permit is unconstitutional and the article clearly says that the liberal mayor wants to push its enforcement and punishment. Surely protesters who pay a tax wouldn't snarl traffic.

If you bothered reading, I clearly stated that I think the permits are stupid. I also think the judge is making an example out of them...At the same time, no example would be able to be made if they weren't disrupting the public(ie, traffic during rush hour).

The fact of the matter is we DON'T have all of the facts. You are showing one side of the argument and I'm showing the other. That means I'm "trolling" you? GTFO.

 

[rambone]

So, you decide to go to Chucky Cheese without your pants on, once you get out of jail, would you get on here to ***** because you got arrested for not following orders?

Chuckie Cheese isn't public property. The article isn't about trespassers. Its about protesters paying the State for the privilege of protesting. The mayor wouldn't be making statements about permits if it was all about traffic flow.

Start handing out tickets for jaywalking if it is a problem. I don't support these "orders" that supposedly dictate that people disperse or be arrested. All they have the authority to do is ticket the individuals who are in the road, not disperse people lawfully exercising their rights.

 

[Benny]

Chuckie Cheese isn't public property. The article isn't about trespassers. Its about protesters paying the State for the privilege of protesting. The mayor wouldn't be making statements about permits if it was all about traffic flow.

Start handing out tickets for jaywalking if it is a problem. I don't support these "orders" that supposedly dictate that people disperse or be arrested. All they have the authority to do is ticket the individuals who are in the road, not disperse people lawfully exercising their rights.

Again, why did you only quote one piece of my post?

Anyway, did you seriously suggest handing out tickets for jaywalking? Let me quote this again for you:

The protest snarled rush-hour traffic on Wilshire Boulevard for hours. When police ordered the protesters to disperse, they refused.

The police asked them to move and they refused. I'm sure they are going to be MORE than willing to comply when asked to sign a ticket.

Seriously, do you even bother thinking about what you write before you write it?

 

[Benny]

Sorry, I didn't (re)address this part:

Its about protesters paying the State for the privilege of protesting. The mayor wouldn't be making statements about permits if it was all about traffic flow.

Never once did I say it was ALL about traffic flow...But I said more than once that if they weren't disrupting traffic, more than likely there wouldn't have been an article for you to post.



Again, I am in COMPLETE agreement with you that permits for protesting are complete BULL****, but it sure doesn't seem that's what they were arrested for...Unless you are reaching, of course.

 

[rambone]

Again, I am in COMPLETE agreement with you that permits for protesting are complete BULL****, but it sure doesn't seem that's what they were arrested for...Unless you are reaching, of course.

The City Attorney is making statements about cracking down on permits. Perhaps he is using the roadblock crisis as a way to push the unconstitutional policy of having to pay for a permit to use your free speech.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

One group was arrested after blocking the sidewalk or street. The reason the other group mentioned was arrested, is not noted in the article. Both groups mentioned are being prosecuted.

Blocking the street is not a good way to go about a protest, in my opinion.

However, it does seem to be a PR move targeting the protesters. It seems clearly aimed at deterring future protests, just judging by the comments quoted in the article.

Yes, protesters can get out of hand. Those having subjective control over who is "issued" a permit, can quickly also get out of hand.

 

[rambone]

It seems clearly aimed at deterring future protests, just judging by the comments quoted in the article.

 

[Love the 1911]

"We knew we were doing something against the law and that we would have to go through the court system," Ruiz said. "That (Trutanich) has taken this path and sought this level of prosecution has been a shock."

So they willfully break a law and due to exercising their first amendment rights, they think they should just get an infraction? Riiiiiight

These people want to get arrested because then more people hear about their protests. That is fine but be ready for the punishment.

"Trutanich said in an interview that recent demonstrations, conducted without permits, had cost the city thousands of dollars for police response and disrupted traffic. Organizers of illegal protests should face consequences, he said."

Rambone, your title is misleading, a fairly common occurence. Unless I completely missed where people were threatened with jail time if they didn't get permits. It only says the organizers should face consequences, not thrown in jail.

Now, if you want to argue the right of the government to require permits to protest, I will be on your side. I think this whole issue is overkill for the "crime" committed and the punishment would be next to nothing if they weren't protesting but at some point, protesters need to know that you don't block traffic or commit other crimes in order to get more publicity without having to pay the price.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

So they willfully break a law and due to exercising their first amendment rights, they think they should just get an infraction? Riiiiiight

These people want to get arrested because then more people hear about their protests. That is fine but be ready for the punishment.

Rambone, your title is misleading, a fairly common occurence. Unless I completely missed where people were threatened with jail time if they didn't get permits. It only says the organizers should be punished, not thrown in jail.

Now, if you want to argue the right of the government to require permits to protest, I will be on your side. I think this whole issue is overkill for the "crime" committed and the punishment would be next to nothing if they weren't protesting but at some point, protesters need to know that you don't block traffic or commit other crimes in order to get more publicity without having to pay the price.

While for the most part I do agree... And I really cringe at the idea of breaking laws being "justified" in people's eyes....

Wouldn't the same apply to people that were part of larger civil rights protests in the past? Should they have been prosecuted, for "blocking streets"?

I mean, it is a odd line ... but.. ???

 

[Love the 1911]

While for the most part I do agree... And I really cringe at the idea of breaking laws being "justified" in people's eyes....

Wouldn't the same apply to people that were part of larger civil rights protests in the past? Should they have been prosecuted, for "blocking streets"?

I mean, it is a odd line ... but.. ???

If I was not able to get where I needed to go then yes, they should have been arrested. If I was one of 1,000 mostly (ok, all) white cops standing in front of 500,000 minority demonstrators, then we should make sure they have the right to assemble peacefully.

I know what you're saying and there were plenty of people that took part in illegal activities during demonstrations as part of the civil rights movement that got much worse than jail time (water cannon, severely beaten, lynched). It appears that these protesters were given a chance to move out of the street and they refused. The other group that was in the article also locked arms in some manner, I'm not sure if they were blocking access to a building/road/other public-access facility or not.

 

[rambone]

I think there is too much focus on the previous incidents. The City Attorney is threatening future political protesters by cracking down on future speech permits. Are you guys seeing where the title comes from... yet??

 

[Love the 1911]

I think there is too much focus on the previous incidents. The City Attorney is threatening future political protesters by cracking down on future speech permits. Are you guys seeing where the title comes from... yet??

You're reaching again. Where does it say he is cracking down on future speech permits? I thought it was protest permits, not speech permits but apparently you can read more than the words that appear in an article than I can. We can see where the title comes from...you. Your title sounds better and attracts more attention than by representing the article for what it actually is, a crackdown on illegal activity while protesting. If you can point in this article where future political protesters are being threatened with jail time for not getting a permission slip, I will stop arguing with you and jump on your bandwagon. Stick to the stories that have some merit like the Mexican military making traffic stops on US soil and illegally searching vehicles.