WBC fails to picket soldier's funeral...
- Thread starter AshburnerX
- Start date
- Status
Because bringing questionable prosecution against a family that owns a successful (yeah, I know how it sounds, but it is) law firm that (if I recall Josh and Libby correctly) does criminal defense is a bad idea of the highest order.
C
Chibibar
WBC is pushing the letter of the law to the limit but all their acts are within the law.
Now, if a funeral ground is a private ground and they trespass, that is a different story.
Now, if a funeral ground is a private ground and they trespass, that is a different story.
It is. That's why people like to run their mouths on the internet. There's less risk of getting popped in the jaw. Words are powerful tools, but in the end it's the sword that ends the disagreement. Why the hell do you think countries go to war? Violence is the end resolution for when words and reasoning fail. You can't reason with WBC.
Buzz Aldrin hitting that guy really isn't a good example. For one thing, police actually got involved, as they should have.
Buzz Aldrin didn't lie to the police to cover up what he had done. Buzz Aldrin did not "beat down" Bart Sibrel, he punched him once. There is something incredibly satisfying about that punch, but it does make it the legal thing to do (or even the best response).
Compare
The Buzz Aldrin Punch: police and prosecutors investigated the incident, decided it was not worth prosecuting based on eye witness testimony.
The Westboro Beating: the police are told that no one saw anything, police stop investigating.
Compare
The Buzz Aldrin Punch: police and prosecutors investigated the incident, decided it was not worth prosecuting based on eye witness testimony.
The Westboro Beating: the police are told that no one saw anything, police stop investigating.
Look, all I'm saying is that if you "nah nah nana boo boo" enough to someone's face, you will get popped in yours. It's the default human response. WBC does this on a professional level (yes, they get money from it). They're abusing the laws in places for profit. In my mind, that absolves police from having to give a fuck.
J
Jiarn
No Mathias, they're following the law and everything in this world is black and white. There is no such thing as a grey area. Stop trying to have common sense. It has no place in this discussion.
So you know what was said in that gas station, then?
Which is one of the many reasons why we have cops.
Not black and white, but we do have these things called "laws". These laws lay out what is acceptable or unacceptable in our society. These laws state that, short of defense, you aren't allowed to use force on another human being. The government can create, under very vague-yet-narrow circumstances, restrictions against "fighting words". The WBC does not rise to the level of fighting words. If you attack a member of the WBC over what they say, that might be your natural human response and almost no jury in the world will convict you regardless of how slam dunk the case against you is. But you still broke the law and you still desrve the consequences. This is the real world, where vigilante justice is never OK.
No, they don't. Libby Phelps and Josh Phelps-Roper, both of whom have left the family and disowned their political/religious doctrine as abhorrent, maintain that the Phelps Families make their money off their actual jobs and view any lawsuits resulting from interference in their protests as protection of their rights. They really believe the horrible shit they say and truly believe that their protests are morally imperative proselytizing. They even make the older kids get jobs and pay their own way for the protest trips. I've seen estimates that in the last fifteen years they have made about 1/10th of one year's protest costs off of lawsuits. If the plan was to create causes for legal action for the purpose of profit, they fail at it. Incredibly hard. The "only in it for the cash" things is little more than a conspiracy theory, up there with birthers and truthers.
And even if it was true, the police don't get to pick and choose what victims they help. Police forces do not work they way, they can't work that way.
From the Official Code of Georgia, Annotated (Bold text for emphasis, mine)
16-11-39:
(a) A person commits the offense of disorderly conduct when such person commits any of the following:
(1) Acts in a violent or tumultuous manner toward another person whereby such person is placed in reasonable fear of the safety of such person´s life, limb, or health;
(2) Acts in a violent or tumultuous manner toward another person whereby the property of such person is placed in danger of being damaged or destroyed;
(3) Without provocation, uses to or of another person in such other person´s presence, opprobrious or abusive words which by their very utterance tend to incite to an immediate breach of the peace, that is to say, words which as a matter of common knowledge and under ordinary circumstances will, when used to or of another person in such other person´s presence, naturally tend to provoke violent resentment, that is, words commonly called 'fighting words'; or
(4) Without provocation, uses obscene and vulgar or profane language in the presence of or by telephone to a person under the age of 14 years which threatens an immediate breach of the peace.
(b) Any person who commits the offense of disorderly conduct shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(c) This Code section shall not be deemed or construed to affect or limit the powers of counties or municipal corporations to adopt ordinances or resolutions prohibiting disorderly conduct within their respective limits.
This does not specify the nature of the "fighting words" that would incite a breach of the peace - this merely states that uttering such words, of an opprobrius or abusive nature (target non-specific) would incite a breach of the peace. In other words, statements don't HAVE to be directed at a particular party - they could be directed towards a certain group or entity.
To illustrate: were this hypothetical individual enter into an establishment and state something to the effect of "God hates n*****s, and they will all burn," then that would UNDOUBTEDLY result in a breach of the peace - more than that, depending on where it's uttered.
As a law enforcement officer, I would have no remorse in charging the "victim" in this instance with disorderly conduct, under either the Georgia Code or the Savannah City ordinance for the same, and sending them to jail.
However, I would also be obliged to place the other individual under arrest for either simple battery, battery, or aggravated battery, depending on the nature of his injuries. Alternately, I could charge both parties with Affray, which amounts to fighting in a public place.
TL;DR: both parties are guilty of a crime, as established within the confines of a codified set of laws. No miscarriage of justice there.
With regards to holding the other subjects for questioning in an incident - not outside the confines of credibility to believe that they might have knowledge of an incident... but only if some others were questioned for a similar duration. Otherwise, there may have been more than a little stretching of police authority. HOWEVER: at no point were they under arrest, therefore there was no violation of their 4th Amendment rights.
16-11-39:
(a) A person commits the offense of disorderly conduct when such person commits any of the following:
(1) Acts in a violent or tumultuous manner toward another person whereby such person is placed in reasonable fear of the safety of such person´s life, limb, or health;
(2) Acts in a violent or tumultuous manner toward another person whereby the property of such person is placed in danger of being damaged or destroyed;
(3) Without provocation, uses to or of another person in such other person´s presence, opprobrious or abusive words which by their very utterance tend to incite to an immediate breach of the peace, that is to say, words which as a matter of common knowledge and under ordinary circumstances will, when used to or of another person in such other person´s presence, naturally tend to provoke violent resentment, that is, words commonly called 'fighting words'; or
(4) Without provocation, uses obscene and vulgar or profane language in the presence of or by telephone to a person under the age of 14 years which threatens an immediate breach of the peace.
(b) Any person who commits the offense of disorderly conduct shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(c) This Code section shall not be deemed or construed to affect or limit the powers of counties or municipal corporations to adopt ordinances or resolutions prohibiting disorderly conduct within their respective limits.
This does not specify the nature of the "fighting words" that would incite a breach of the peace - this merely states that uttering such words, of an opprobrius or abusive nature (target non-specific) would incite a breach of the peace. In other words, statements don't HAVE to be directed at a particular party - they could be directed towards a certain group or entity.
To illustrate: were this hypothetical individual enter into an establishment and state something to the effect of "God hates n*****s, and they will all burn," then that would UNDOUBTEDLY result in a breach of the peace - more than that, depending on where it's uttered.
As a law enforcement officer, I would have no remorse in charging the "victim" in this instance with disorderly conduct, under either the Georgia Code or the Savannah City ordinance for the same, and sending them to jail.
However, I would also be obliged to place the other individual under arrest for either simple battery, battery, or aggravated battery, depending on the nature of his injuries. Alternately, I could charge both parties with Affray, which amounts to fighting in a public place.
TL;DR: both parties are guilty of a crime, as established within the confines of a codified set of laws. No miscarriage of justice there.
With regards to holding the other subjects for questioning in an incident - not outside the confines of credibility to believe that they might have knowledge of an incident... but only if some others were questioned for a similar duration. Otherwise, there may have been more than a little stretching of police authority. HOWEVER: at no point were they under arrest, therefore there was no violation of their 4th Amendment rights.
No witnesses, and no suspect information? Write up a battery report, tell him where to get a copy. With no information to go on, this would be more for information than anything else: you can't secure a warrant on John Doe, after all.
- Status