This is sounding like that case of the teacher who was arrested for speaking at a town meeting.
This is sounding like that case of the teacher who was arrested for speaking at a town meeting.
Also? I'd like to know from a person knowledgeable about law stuff how this is even a reasonable argument (see quote below). Firstly, if they're about to bomb said building, you really think they're going to stop that van because one officer is there? They'll just go around his car, or run him down and head for the building anyway. At the least they'd detonate the van if they were stopped short of the building. The officer isn't going to get time to buy.
Not to mention how do you not extrapolate that to driving while funny colored or wearing a funny hat so we just arrested them to make sure they weren't a terrorist?
Lastly, how is this the equivalent of someone standing up at a public government meeting where they're entitled to speak? Isn't that the essence of free speech? Or is our right to participate in government and speak at such meetings not protected and I misunderstand it completely? Because surely this could be used to prevent any dissenting opinions from being heard?
Consider this example, the city argues: A police officer sees someone illegally driving a van through the parking lot of a federal building with a sign that says, "Remember the Children of Waco."
The police officer might reasonably decide to arrest the driver, rather than just issue a citation, thus buying time to determine whether the driver is a concerned citizen or another Oklahoma City bomber.
https://www.npr.org/2018/02/27/586564094/the-curious-case-of-a-florida-man-who-called-politicians-corrupt-got-thrown-in-j
https://www.npr.org/2018/02/27/586564094/the-curious-case-of-a-florida-man-who-called-politicians-corrupt-got-thrown-in-j
Also? I'd like to know from a person knowledgeable about law stuff how this is even a reasonable argument (see quote below). Firstly, if they're about to bomb said building, you really think they're going to stop that van because one officer is there? They'll just go around his car, or run him down and head for the building anyway. At the least they'd detonate the van if they were stopped short of the building. The officer isn't going to get time to buy.
Not to mention how do you not extrapolate that to driving while funny colored or wearing a funny hat so we just arrested them to make sure they weren't a terrorist?
Lastly, how is this the equivalent of someone standing up at a public government meeting where they're entitled to speak? Isn't that the essence of free speech? Or is our right to participate in government and speak at such meetings not protected and I misunderstand it completely? Because surely this could be used to prevent any dissenting opinions from being heard?
Consider this example, the city argues: A police officer sees someone illegally driving a van through the parking lot of a federal building with a sign that says, "Remember the Children of Waco."
The police officer might reasonably decide to arrest the driver, rather than just issue a citation, thus buying time to determine whether the driver is a concerned citizen or another Oklahoma City bomber.
https://www.npr.org/2018/02/27/586564094/the-curious-case-of-a-florida-man-who-called-politicians-corrupt-got-thrown-in-j
https://www.npr.org/2018/02/27/586564094/the-curious-case-of-a-florida-man-who-called-politicians-corrupt-got-thrown-in-j
Comments
Post a Comment