Gay rights rally: woman is punched in the face by cops

if you look in the background, you can see the gay activists molesting children and marrying goats too.

 

Damn that must have been some where is waldo shit cause I totally overlooked it, all I saw was a loud mouth bitch taking a few shots to the gut.

 

Inside special interest groups of any kind they are the norm, not an abomination.

Human beings have to stoop pretty low to make a guy like that seem like the victim, but for this crowd it comes naturally.

I disagree with everything he is saying but fully support his right to say it. Screaming obscenities like a 7th grader and threatening bodily harm is a curious debating style that rarely wins any argument.

She assaulted him, then resisted arrest. I thought the cop showed remarkable restraint.

 

"Oh, you don't wish to be arrested Ms___? Would you please stop attacking people and just stand here politely for a few minutes while I call for some of my co-workers to come and assist me in taking you to jail?"

You so funny, Denny Crane.

 

I don't either. It's your right and there's certainly no law against it.

Though the image often represents illegal speech, "shouting fire in a crowded theater" refers to an outdated legal standard. At one point, the law criminalized such speech, which created a "clear and present danger." But since 1969, for speech to break the law, it can’t merely lead others to dangerous situations. It must directly encourage others to commit specific criminal actions of their own.

The idea of falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater arose from the Supreme Court’s 1919 decision in the case Schenck v. United States. The Court ruled unanimously that the First Amendment, though it protects freedom of expression, does not protect dangerous speech. In the decision, Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that no free speech safeguard would cover someone "falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic."

The case in question did not involve fires, theaters or general panic. It instead concerned a man’s conviction for protesting the First World War’s military draft. The man, Charles Schenck, had printed 15,000 fliers that encouraged readers to resist conscription. The Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 criminalized such an offense, said prosecutors.

Schenck argued that the Constitution allowed his expression, but the Court disagreed. According to their ruling, Schnenck’s fliers created a clear and present danger — a clear and present danger to the government’s recruiting efforts. He hadn’t endangered life, as falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater would have, but he may as well have.

This "clear and present danger" standard stood for half a century. Further rulings even expanded it, criminalizing additional speech. But the Supreme Court then heard a case involving a new example of questionable speech, one that modern sensibilities might find more controversial than war protests.

Charles Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader, had spoken to group members at a televised Ohio rally. He’d used inflammatory language and racial slurs. He’d called for "revengeance," which Ohio prosecutors interpreted as a call to violence. This meant, said the prosecutors, that Charles Brandenburg had broken the law.

A statute, which the state had enacted the same year as the Schenck decision, criminalized the advocacy of crime or violence. The victims of any possible crime this speech incited would face even clearer danger than patrons fleeing a crowded theater.

Yet Brandenburg claimed the First Amendment protected his speech. His appeal reached the Supreme Court, and the Court agreed with him, in contrast with the earlier Schenck decision. Advocacy, even when it encourages law-breaking, helps the marketplace of ideas, ruled the Court. Had Brandenburg instructed followers to commit a specific crime, he’d have committed a number of offenses himself. But the First Amendment protects speech that merely advocates general, indefinite illegal action.

With that ruling, the Court overturned the Schenck decision that had introduced "shouting fire in a crowded theater." No longer was "clear and present danger" a sufficient standard for criminalizing speech. To break the law, speech now had to incite "imminent lawless action."

So if a court can prove that you incite imminent lawlessness by falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, it can convict you. If you incite an unlawful riot, your speech is "brigaded" with illegal action, and you will have broken the law. But merely falsely shouting "fire" does not break the law, even if it risks others’ safety.

And, of course, no court will fault you for warning of a fire that actually exists.

http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com...-shout-"fire"-in-a-crowded-theater-19421.html

 

It was a police officer subduing a violent and resisting criminal man or woman he had a right to protect himself and subdue her. Had there not been a large crowd maybe he would have just pepper sprayed her, or pulled out his taser, instead she got a couple taps to the stomach.

 

From what I heard she swung at him as he was breaking up the fight. Clearly someone getting arrested for fighting in public represents a risk to the officer. Maybe he was excessive but its a big deal because she is a woman.

 

She grabbed his arm could be viewed as resisting, but I will concede his actions were excessive but it was only news worthy cause it was a woman being hit by a man.

 

She got served

 

if a cop is punching, kicking, shooting, or raping you, dont try and stop them. that is resisting

resist the urge to protect your face from being beaten, it is illegal.