Dealing with Westboro protesters Mississippi style

[vaskidmark]

http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/2011/04/21/mississippi-shows-how-you-handle-westboro-freaks

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.

There's a video of the town's turnout for a fallen hometown boy.  There's a name-calling headline.  There's reporting of the poor memory of folks who hang out at one of the local gas stations.  And there is some editorializing about the poor towing service available.

There is nothing to suggest there was anything less than a town-wide conspiracy taking place.

Well done, Rankin, MS!

stay safe.

[Hawkmoon]

Well played, indeed.

[dogmush]

Well it should be well played, they've had practice.  Isn't that pretty much the same stuff they did when the feds came looking for those uppity black kids that got lost in the swamps in the '60's?


It goes without saying that WBC are asshats, but are we really celebrating assault, and conspiracy to cover it up?  Not to mention cops detaining whoever they feel like with no crime being committed?

Really?  Cops just get to decide what the law is based on what they feel it should be and enforce that? Really? VASkidmark, are you sure there?

Yeah WBC pisses me off every time they make a spectacle at one of my comrades funerals, but not nearly so pissed off as some good 'ole boy sheriff that feels he can make *expletive deleted*it up if he doesn't like someone.  We have freedoms for a reason, and crap like this is why we have to defend them.

This:

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.

is as disgusting, and more frightening, then anything WBC has managed to do.

Hypothetical:  How would any of you feel if Chicago and CPD had done this to Gura when he was going to court for MacDonald?

[280plus]

Remember, under the 9th amendment these people have just as much right to do what they did to WBC as WBC has to protest at these funerals. Other than the "arse waxing" I'd say it was a pretty ingenious and relatively peaceful way to go about what they accomplished. I do applaud them.

[De Selby]

Remember, under the 9th amendment these people have just as much right to do what they did to WBC as WBC has to protest at these funerals. Other than the "arse waxing" I'd say it was a pretty ingenious and relatively peaceful way to go about what they accomplished. I do applaud them.

Wait a sec there - how does the 9th amendment give locals the right to stop speech that they (and most) consider abhorrent?

While it's hard to get angry at anyone for stuffing around the Westboro mob, it is probably worth noting that these tactics (and worse) were at one time employed against people who wanted equal rights for the races, as dogmush rightly does.  The WBC can annoy me, but it can't arrest me and question me for hours because it doesn't like my politics.

[HankB]

The satanists of WBC have been looking to provoke a reaction for a long time . . . it seems that they finally got their wish.  (Wasn't there an old Biblical passage something along the lines of "As ye sow, so shall ye reap?")

[AJ Dual]

While it's hard to get angry at anyone for stuffing around the Westboro mob, it is probably worth noting that these tactics (and worse) were at one time employed against people who wanted equal rights for the races, as dogmush rightly does.  The WBC can annoy me, but it can't arrest me and question me for hours because it doesn't like my politics.

Well, if/when that town and county use/abuse their powers against some other group, we'll all stand up and condemn them and demand action. 

I see this as a lesser application of the idea that "The founders never intended the Constitution be a suicide pact." Putting aside the question of a crisis where following the Constitution to the letter would be a Pyhrric victory that would destroy the Republic, in the same vein it wasn't intended to force people to endure certain lesser intolerable acts either.

[280plus]

Wait a sec there - how does the 9th amendment give locals the right to stop speech that they (and most) consider abhorrent?

The 9th says your rights are too ennumerable to list. They are infinite. So under the 9th we most certainly have the right to use whatever means we deem necessary to stop them from doing what they are doing. Consequently, the 9th gives them the right to retaliate in any form they deem necessary. Whether it be direct conflict, legally or civilly. It is a bit of a double edged sword which is why you don't hear the NRA touting it. 

In this case, how much consequence can be brought against the town? The tow trucks couldn't get out fast enough because they were busy? Happens all the time And, I sure as hell know that when the coppers are looking for some criminal or another in town all out of state plates are fair game. Been that route, it wasn't pretty. Wasn't as ugly as it could have gotten though.

[De Selby]

Well, if/when that town and county use/abuse their powers against some other group, we'll all stand up and condemn them and demand action. 

I see this as a lesser application of the idea that "The founders never intended the Constitution be a suicide pact." Putting aside the question of a crisis where following the Constitution to the letter would be a Pyhrric victory that would destroy the Republic, in the same vein it wasn't intended to force people to endure certain lesser intolerable acts either.

So wait a second here, you don't think the Constitution was specifically intended to protect unpopular speech from official censorship???

It was precisely intended to force people to endure speech that they don't like.  Wouldn't need the first amendment otherwise.

[De Selby]

The 9th says your rights are too ennumerable to list. They are infinite. So under the 9th we most certainly have the right to use whatever means we deem necessary to stop them from doing what they are doing. Consequently, the 9th gives them the right to retaliate in any form they deem necessary. Whether it be direct conflict, legally or civilly. It is a bit of a double edged sword which is why you don't hear the NRA touting it. 

In this case, how much consequence can be brought against the town? The tow trucks couldn't get out fast enough because they were busy? Happens all the time And, I sure as hell know that when the coppers are looking for some criminal or another in town all out of state plates are fair game. Been that route, it wasn't pretty. Wasn't as ugly as it could have gotten though.

Yeah, I'm not sure I agree with your analysis of the 9th amendment there - but barring that, free speech is clearly a constitutional right.  Perhaps we shouldn't be celebrating official, coordinated action to shut down someone else's speech just because we hate its content.

[Nick1911]

Aren't police legally allowed to detain anyone for up to 24 hours without a charge?

Does there have to be RS or PC for such detainment?  If so, what was it in this case?

[GigaBuist]

It was precisely intended to force people to endure speech that they don't like.

They've said their peace.  Everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY, has decided we don't need to hear it again.

[grampster]

Free speech goes only as far as a line being crossed into the territory of disorderly conduct.  Disorderly conduct could be construed as conduct that elevates the passions of normally reasonable and proper folk to the point of creating or potentially creating a greater disturbance.  I'll admit that may be somewhat subjective.  But that's why we select and pay police officers to make those judgements under the rule of law.

For as much as free speech seems to be touted as a nearly unlimited right, we must always remember that in our Republic we are a society of laws that are used to encourage a civil society.  Laws always constrain freedom.  Therefore our right to free speech does have limits, and that has been accepted.

I've always been perplexed by people who seem to want to stretch the limits of civil society by using our freedoms to created a coarser society that values darkness over light. So, I say that those of us who value peace, freeom and harmony have the right to stretch those same limits in the opposite direction. 

[De Selby]

Aren't police legally allowed to detain anyone for up to 24 hours without a charge?

Does there have to be RS or PC for such detainment?  If so, what was it in this case?

The amount of time depends on what they're investigating - usually "RS" is required.  

GigaBuist, guess what?  The whole point of the first amendment is that we don't get to decide when someone else will speak out with unpopular beliefs.  

I'm reminded of the episode of the Simpsons when Lisa questions Jebediah Springfield's true identity - everyone's ready to hang Lisa for insulting their dear leader, but once she starts saying how great ol' Jeb was, they shout "free speech! free speech!"

[De Selby]

Free speech goes only as far as a line being crossed into the territory of disorderly conduct.  Disorderly conduct could be construed as conduct that elevates the passions of normally reasonable and proper folk to the point of creating or potentially creating a greater disturbance.  I'll admit that may be somewhat subjective.  But that's why we select and pay police officers to make those judgements under the rule of law.

For as much as free speech seems to be touted as a nearly unlimited right, we must always remember that in our Republic we are a society of laws that are use to encourage a civil society.  Laws always constrain freedom.  Therefore our right to free speech does have limits, and that has been accepted.

The Supreme Court considered exactly what you raised, in relation to this very same group and its opinions.  Our right to free speech does indeed have limitations - but there is no way to fit the WBC into those limits without granting the Government the power to review and decide which religious and political beliefs are acceptable.

[dogmush]

They've said their peace.  Everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY, has decided we don't need to hear it again.

So shoot them.

If their speech is sooooo horibble that they have abdicated their rights go whole hog.  Otherwise STFU and wait for them to make a mistake then shut them down legally.

Whatever happened to the sentiment "I may not like what you say, but I'll die to protect your right to say it."

Free speech goes only as far as a line being crossed into the territory of disorderly conduct.  Disorderly conduct could be construed as conduct that elevates the passions of normally reasonable and proper folk to the point of creating or potentially creating a greater disturbance.  I'll admit that may be somewhat subjective.  But that's why we select and pay police officers to make those judgements under the rule of law.

So those officers picked up the church members for a Disorderly Conduct charge under that rule of law, right?

Let me expound here for a moment:

I can sympithize with the whoopin.  I agree with the witnesses.  If I saw that beating, I would be hard pressed to morally remember anything useful.  They're adults and their speech is abhorrant.  A beating in MS is a pretty foreseeable consequence of acting like an asshat in MS.  Actions ->Consequenses and all that.

But all that is interactions between private citizens.

When an (armed) agency of the government colludes to stop the political speech of a group because it doesn't like that speech?  No, that's BS.  And should be stopped.

Suicide pact my ass.  There is absolutly NOTHING the WBC could possibly do to damage the US.  There's no reason to comprimise our principles because we don't like them.  I could list for pages threads where scream and moan because the police or gov is thinking about, possibly, invading our privacy, or not letting us carry a pistol in the fashion we'd like, or not letting us smoke what we'd like.  And yet when EXACTLY the kind of reprehensable speech the first ammendment was penned to protect is stifled you're all lined up to cheer for it. WTH?

[grampster]

Many years ago when I was in LE, I arrested an attorney.  (He'd had his car impounded because it had been left in a traffic lane.) He was at the towing facility shouting and using offensive language.  A small crowd had gathered including women, men and children.  The attorney was really ticking off the crowd with his behavior.  He was on the verge of having his fanny kicked.

I arrested the attorney for disorderly conduct; by creating a disturbance.  He was inflaming a group of people with offensive language.  A judge came to HQ and tried to get me to release him.  I explained what he did.  The judge backed off.  The attorney pled guilty, paid a fine, and had to apoligize to the employees of the towing facility.  If what I did was stultifying free speech, then I think the judge and attorney sure would have made an issue of it.

PS:  I didn't read the article yet.  My comments are of a general nature regarding what may be unlawful speech.

[roo_ster]

Well played, Brandon, MS.  Well played, indeed.

Sounds to me that the WBC was not only reaping what it sowed, it reaped it in the same manner.  WBC stands on a reading of the law that maximizes their latitude and threatens legal action against any who might interfere, usually by pushing the law to the boundaries and taking advantage of any possible legal flexibility. 

Well, it looks to me that Brandon, MS, carefully walked the legal line without crossing it and used the law to THEIR best advantage when dealing with the WBC.  Brandon was able to trump & stymie WBC at their own game due to the participation and sympathy of the locals.

And, yes, it is horrible indeed that some miscreant roughed up some WBC member.  I feel pained, pained that the guilty party was unable to be identified and still walks among free men.  I think I shall go to my private retreat to meditate on this issue and seek spiritual solace.

Or maybe not:

I've always been perplexed by people who seem to want to stretch the limits of civil society by using our freedoms to created a coarser society that values darkness over light. So, I say that those of us who value peace, freeom and harmony have the right to stretch those same limits in the opposite direction. 

 

Folks like the WBC ought not be too surprised when the objects of their law-stretching decide to fight fire with fire.

So shoot them.

If their speech is sooooo horibble that they have abdicated their rights go whole hog.  Otherwise STFU and wait for them to make a mistake then shut them down legally.

Hysteric much?

WBC acts in a coarse and unsympathetic manner.  They've no moral basis to snivel when similar tactics are used against them.

[De Selby]

grampster - throwing a fit over a parking fine and a political protest, aimed at delivering a specific religious and political message are two obviously different situations.  Again, that issue (of what is disorderly or not) is covered in the Supreme Court's case. 

It's the content of the WBC message that angers people, not the attitude or shouting (which they don't do - they mainly stand around with their ridiculous signs.)

Roo_ster, if the facts as alleged are true, they most certainly did cross a legal line.  Whether there will be consequences is another matter, but I don't think it's healthy to celebrate that kind of thing.  As dogmush rightly pointed out, this sort of thing doesn't just happen to weirdos.

[dogmush]

roo_ster:

It was hyperbole.  I don't think anyone here thinks they should be summarily executed, but everyone seems fine with the .gov summarilly taking other rights.

I'm not concerned about their sniviling, I'm more concerned with the police misconduct. Their protesting a government action.   It's the very definition of protected political speech.  Which is why the PD didn't arrest them for disordly conduct.  They knew they'd be in a 1st ammendment lawsuit if that happened.  So they decided to get sneaky with the law to shut down something they didn't like.  You know, like taking a pistol at a traffic stop and making you prove it's yours to get it back.  Same thing.

Grampster:

They didn't arrest them for disorderly conduct.  They county government (or workers) blocked their cars in the hotel, and then when they walked to the protest the local PD detained them for questioning in an unrelated, undisclosed crime. All with a wink and a nod.

[Nick1911]

They didn't arrest them for disorderly conduct.  They county government (or workers) blocked their cars in the hotel, and then when they walked to the protest the local PD detained them for questioning in an unrelated, undisclosed crime. All with a wink and a nod.

It's my understanding that the cars were blocked in with private citizens trucks, who illegally parked them there, with the understanding that they could be impounded.  Of course, it seems clear that they local towing company was colluding with them as well.

As far as the PD detaining people...  Seems sketchy.

[roo_ster]

dm & ds:

If you think this occurred without the consent of the governed, you are unfamiliar with small town America.

WBC uses the law to the extreme to achieve its objectives and the locals did the same.  If you think what the locals did was somehow different in kind because some local LEOs may have been involved and used the discretion granted them by court and statute on the side of WBC's targets, I think you ignore WBS's using state & federal courts and LEOs to enforce WBC's walking along an extreme interpretation of the law.

That's why it is beautiful.  Hoist on their own petard.

I hope they enjoyed their stay in Mississippi.

[RevDisk]

So wait a second here, you don't think the Constitution was specifically intended to protect unpopular speech from official censorship???

It was precisely intended to force people to endure speech that they don't like.  Wouldn't need the first amendment otherwise.

Tolerate.   Not endure.   If you showed up at my door, trying to convert me or say bad things, I have every right to slam my door in your face.   I don't agree with the assault if it was not justified in defense of person or property.   The pickup truck thing was also freedom of speech.   The right to obstruct that which is evil.   The police should have been impartial and fined them appropriately.   I would have kicked in for covering that tab.

Back in the day, freedom of speech was balanced with duels.   We lost that necessary balance and replaced it with courts. 

[dogmush]

The pickup truck thing was also freedom of speech.   The right to obstruct that which is evil.   The police should have been impartial and fined them appropriately.   I would have kicked in for covering that tab.

It's my understanding that the cars were blocked in with private citizens trucks, who illegally parked them there, with the understanding that they could be impounded.

From the article:

Most of the morons never made it out of their hotel parking lot. It seems that certain Rankin county pickup trucks were parked directly behind any car that had Kansas plates in the hotel parking lot and the drivers mysteriously disappeared until after the funeral was over.

I read that as county owned trucks (DPW or whatever)  If that actually means private trucks whose owners live in Rankin County, then yeah, game the frak on.  What I do with my truck is my buisness, and would kick in for the impound fee if I knew the owners.  If they were public owned trucks that's another matter.

Still pissed at the PD.  Transparantly detaining individuals for the purpose of stopping political speech is a No-Go.

Back in the day, freedom of speech was balanced with duels.   We lost that necessary balance and replaced it with courts.

Courts have failed IMO to adequately replace that.  All joking aside, these folks are a poster child for needing to be 10 paces away at dawn.  If we still had an appropriate redress available, then maybe we wouldn't feel the need to resort to Gestapo tactics.

[gunsmith]

WBC are more interested in lawsuits and the profits they get from the lawsuits. They use the letter of the law and ignore the spirit.
Mississippi did the same, in doing so they might have saved some lives.
Sooner or later someone who feels they don't have much to lose is going to kill some of them, I'd much rather have "the people"
handle it like this town did.

Cops have a duty to investigate crime, WBC got reported by someone and they did, just like an anonymous phone call got all those kids rounded up and the FLDS parents thrown in the clinker.

Some citizens parked their cars illegally OMG!!! call the FBI!

the cops and citizens didn't really break any laws, they obeyed the letter of the law.
cops in NYC in the old days would protest by enforcing the letter of the law, the city would grind to a halt.

I used to be an armed guard in San Francisco, I had to guard the cable car ticket sales people. homeless addicts would harass the tourist & I told them to get lost and the addicts got the cops who told me the addicts have free speech & I had to leave them alone.
So, I got creative, I politely asked the tourist not to give the addicts spare changed & they gladly didn't , the addicts got the cops again and they were not happy, I asked them if I had free speech - they had to agree I did. addicts zero gunsmith winning