The coming police state

[Sassy]

Didn't see that this was posted yet - just another reminder that we are indeed in a police state...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PLiKvSz_wX8

and if you don't think so, look at the treatment of this young girl/woman & police brutality - totally unnecessary, totally out of line, despicable, alarming & most of the mall shoppers around just walk on by like nothing is even happening...  reminds me of when I was younger & would read about the brutality in the totalitarian countries, the disrespect of anyone's right to free speech or to not be assaulted by the very people who are supposed to be protecting you...  disgusting

http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/censorship/dont-buy-war-freeze-flash-mob--police-brutality-in-austin-tx.html

[Woodsrule]

I watched the ridiculous piece and, from my perspective found the protestors to be out of line. First of all, there's no freedom to protest in a privately owned business. Just because it's a mall does not mean that you can go there and disrupt other folks who just want to shop and be left alone. If they were protesting on the sidewalk outside of the mall I would be more sympathetic, but screaming and yelling obscenities when I am shopping would not sit well with me. Also, I see no evidence that she was "brutally beaten." What I do see is mall security and police officers exercising restraint with these people who obviously were spoiling for a fight so they could post it on the internet.

[Windpower]

Thanks for the vid Sassy


One's first amendment rights are not superceded by location. (ie 'private' property or public property) there is plenty of case law on this.

Standing silently holding signs in a public place such as a shopping mall is obstructing shoppers ?

*shaking head in disbelief at the ignorance of many of the american public*

The clause 1031 is the end of the bill of rights IMO. From the cited C Span video, according to Senator Levin it was the Obama administration that wanted US citizens included in the elgible people to be arrested kidnapped and held indefinitely (that is code for "Forever") by our military. -- without warrant, without trial, without trial by jury, without recourse of Habeas Corpus.

Anyone accused of being a 'terrorist' or aiding a terrorist group can will be held in a prison till they die.

Can any American accept this ?

[Windpower]

I watched the ridiculous piece and, from my perspective found the protestors to be out of line. First of all, there's no freedom to protest in a privately owned business. Just because it's a mall does not mean that you can go there and disrupt other folks who just want to shop and be left alone. If they were protesting on the sidewalk outside of the mall I would be more sympathetic, but screaming and yelling obscenities when I am shopping would not sit well with me. Also, I see no evidence that she was "brutally beaten." What I do see is mall security and police officers exercising restraint with these people who obviously were spoiling for a fight so they could post it on the internet.

The only person that was shouting threats was the Black security guard near the end and the older 'grampa' guard who issued a threat saying he would "take him out"

I heard no profanities  or obscenities unless you are calling 'shame shame" an obscenity.  No one said she was beaten but the young girl was treated roughly and had her arms twisted causing here to scream in pain.

There were no obscenities used by the protestors in the video. Nor was anyone screaming except the young girl screaming in pain at having here arms twisted. How is silently holding up signs "spoiling for a fight."

It makes one wonder if we watched the same video clip.

[MountainDon]

One's first amendment rights are not superceded by location. (ie 'private' property or public property) there is plenty of case law on this.

Mmmm. I don't think that is true. As a property owner or property manager I can restrict the rights of people to gather and demonstrate on my own or my managed property. That is a basic right; ie I can picket a shop if I have a complaint, but the mall management can restrict that picketing to the public sidewalk outside the mall property.

[peternap]

That's right Don.
Windpower, remember that the Constitution only protects citizens from the government, not private individuals (Including Corporations).

If I'm on my property, people are damn well going to conform to MY rules despite a constitutional right to free speech.
Most people don't understand it but even civil rights such as racial equality are not guaranteed in many states.

The Federal Civil Rights Act that is the basis for insuring racial equality, only restrains the Governments at every level, certain businesses such as Hotes/Motels and businesses receiving Federal funding or conducting interstate business.

There is no guaranteed right to do as you please, anywhere you please.

[Sassy]

I watched the ridiculous piece and, from my perspective found the protestors to be out of line. First of all, there's no freedom to protest in a privately owned business. Just because it's a mall does not mean that you can go there and disrupt other folks who just want to shop and be left alone. If they were protesting on the sidewalk outside of the mall I would be more sympathetic, but screaming and yelling obscenities when I am shopping would not sit well with me. Also, I see no evidence that she was "brutally beaten." What I do see is mall security and police officers exercising restraint with these people who obviously were spoiling for a fight so they could post it on the internet.

  I find your answer almost more disturbing than what was done to that tiny,young woman by that big bruiser...  if a lot of people think like that, our freedoms are taking a last breath.  The protestors were quiet, just had things written on their bags & a few signs & were standing there - did you notice the title?   All she did was take a bag & was almost immediately accosted...  if that's what I can expect to happen when I go shopping, to spend my hard earned money at a mall, I will not be going to any malls...  they can have their crap.     I see lots of people with slogans on their tee shirts, their bags, their hats...  so if I have the name Jesus on my tee shirt, I can be manhandled, thrown on the ground, basically molested - did you see how that security guard was putting his hands all over her legs up to her crotch?  I'm sorry, but that isn't the way I will be allowed to be treated.

Here's another video - it's from CSPAN, don't think its been posted but Windpower alluded to it - it is Congressman Levin talking about being forced by the Obama Administration to include US citizens in the 1867 Gestapo law - it is in section 1037 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PLiKvSz_wX8

[peternap]

This was a bad example of a Police State Sassy.
I happen to agree that we are in one, but what the video (Protest Video) shows is a normal protest where the protestors knew full well they were going to be told to leave and expected one or two to be arrested for trespassing.

I watched the video carefully several times. The girl that was arrested was arrested for trespassing. Why she was singled out was carefully left out of the film. It's usually because they flat refuse or say something provocative. In her case, she was hamming it up for the camera, squirming on the floor, scooting away, screaming, Etc. Again, a normal tactic.

I didn't see the cop do anything out of line.

The Security Guards were being Security Guards. There is a reason they get minimum wage, are the butt of countless jokes and do not have police powers. The fat Black Guard needs to get back to the Ghetto before he gets the Mall sued or gets shot.

Now as to what Woodsrule said in part...
What I saw was a peaceful Protest. I heard no obscenities being screamed or passerbys being accosted and if it had been on public property or had the permission of the owner, a pretty mild display.
Mild displays are also ineffective...they need some spice.

[Windpower]

A shopping mall is private property but it is also a public place. Can "private" shopping malls exclude certain races of people because they are 'private' and thus trample on their protected rights -- of course not
Neither does one give up any other of their rights walking into a mall.


Here is a recent court decision about protests in a shopping mall.

http://www.insidecounsel.com/2008/03/01/court-rules-unions-may-protest-at-shopping-malls

"The case wound its way to the state Supreme Court. In a 4-3 decision, the court decided December 2007 to support the union.

"At the end of the day, mall property owners' restrictions that bar groups from attacking a company that's doing business on the property aren't valid," says Michael Lotito, partner in Jackson Lewis' San Francisco office. "That's pretty profound."

[peternap]

Interesting Case Windpower, and an argument I've made many times about Malls that ban guns. Virginia doesn't accept the principal though and private property is still private here.

I was comparing apples to oranges earlier apparently. I was talking about the Federal Constitution and rights under it. Each state has it's own interpretation of their State Constitution.

[MountainDon]

Here's another video - it's from CSPAN, don't think its been posted but Windpower alluded to it - it is Congressman Levin talking about being forced by the Obama Administration to include US citizens in the 1867 Gestapo law - it is in section 1037 

How many readers here have taken a moment to write to their Representative and their Senator regarding their feelings on this? 

[peternap]

How many readers here have taken a moment to write to their Representative and their Senator regarding their feelings on this?

I have Don...and talked to them at least once and a number of times to their Assistants.

[Windpower]

Don, the horse has left the barn

This 'law' was passed in the Senate by a nearly unanimous vote !

Clearly this 'law' abrogates the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 14th amnedments to the constitution and probabaly others --- the congress doesn't give a dam about the constitution, do you really think they give a dam about us mere mundanes writing letters (unless of course it contains a 5 or 6 figure check)

Here's a thought let's just say citizen Smith gets apprehended by the Army on suspicion that he aided a spy group,

In theory he could appeal this to the supreme court to challenge the unconstitutional aspects of this 'law'

ooops , wrong, he has no standing and there has been no trial to overtune and just maybe no one knows wher he is 

even if Obama were to veto it (which he won't of course) it is veto proof

George Carlin correctly sums it up, the answer is at the 2 minute mark

[embed=425,349]<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/acLW1vFO-2Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/embed]

[peternap]

I think Don was speaking Past Tense Windpower.
The idea is have you done anything about it if you don't like it.

It was a losing battle and I can't understand why....but such is life.

[Windpower]

I think Don was speaking Past Tense Windpower.
The idea is have you done anything about it if you don't like it.

It was a losing battle and I can't understand why....but such is life.

It would seem that the program is far advanced, Peter.  Here is a National guard commercial for Internment Resettlement Specialist.

Our Motto "of the troups for the troups"   

[embed=425,349]<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Uylxx0t5rss" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/embed]

[MountainDon]

I think Don was speaking Past Tense Windpower.
The idea is have you done anything about it if you don't like it.

Exactly Peter, it's all too easy to complain and also as easy to take no action at all.  Voicing ones concerns does not always shift the outcome, but I feel if I don't make the effort I shouldn't really be complaining. It is discouraging at times, but there have been some victories.

[Windpower]

Exactly Peter, it's all too easy to complain and also as easy to take no action at all.  Voicing ones concerns does not always shift the outcome, but I feel if I don't make the effort I shouldn't really be complaining. It is discouraging at times, but there have been some victories.

To be clear then, Don, did you make your concerns about this bill to your representatives in congress or do you support  the warrentless arrest and indefinite detention of US citizens without trial by the military ?

[MountainDon]

Why do you have to ask? Do you think that just because I come out on the side of the rights of property owners to restrict activities on their property that means I'd be in favor of granting government, police or military carte blanche?  I have a strong belief in property rights as an individual. I extend that to all other properties owned privately, be that a single person, a family or a large corporation.

Yes a shopping mall, like any mom and pop store is, as a rule, open to the public. That does not make it a public place. It is a privately owned place that has invited people in for various business purposes. If I have invited people onto my private land and they don't want to follow my rules, I will ask them to leave. I feel the same rights should be extended to the shopping mall. Of course, having invited the public in they can not exclude people who have rights under various federal, state or local laws; no discrimination because of color, religion, being gay or not gay, etc. However, I have no problem with the property owners telling the invitees that certain types of behavior will not be tolerated. That's the same right I exercise when I tell visitors that I don't want them riding ATV's or dirt bikes in certain areas.

I haven't looked into those case laws links too far. I do see they come from California. I know I shouldn't paint with too a broad brush, but there have been a number of court decisions from California that make no sense at all. At least many make no sense at all to someone who is not a liberal.

So what did I write to my Rep and Senator? I told them I could not support them if they supported the bill in question.  They know we vote if they've done their homework. Whether or not they listen, or rather hear, that is another matter altogether.

[MountainDon]

  (excerpt from letter to me from Tom Udall (NM Senator  (D)  ) ....

"I also supported a compromise amendment offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA) on December 1, 2011.  The amendment clarified that nothing in the NDAA changed the due process rights of U.S. citizens and individuals in the U.S.  This amendment passed by a vote of 99-1. While I'm pleased that the Senate at the very least passed this amendment, I would have preferred stronger and clearer language.  Unfortunately, the majority of the United States Senate did not."


and, the unfortunate part...
"Because of the many important provisions included in the NDAA for our brave men and women in the military, and for the New Mexico military installations so vital to our nation's security, I supported final passage of the legislation.  The bill passed by a vote of 93-7 and is now being considered by a Conference Committee, which is comprised of several members from both the House and the Senate, to negotiate the differences between each chamber's versions of the NDAA. I am hopeful my colleagues on the conference committee will improve the detainee language. "


Politics as usual

[Native_NM]

"No shirt, no shoes, no service".   If this is posted on a private business open to the public, guess whose rights are protected?   Some people have argued that going shoeless or shirtless is a form of expression and protected by the Constitution. Look that case up.