Anyone else hear about this??

[Tucker6900]

http://c.washingtontimes.com/neighbo...y-so-publicly/

If this is true.....

[davidmcbeth]

If this is true.....

Yes, its true. But the lawyer who wrote this article rambles on and on, it put me to sleep .. there are better sources of of information regarding this bill that this guy.

[CCinMaine]

I would look up the actual law that was passed but I don't think he even referenced it. I bet its just a law to easily evict scum that is destroying public or private property in the name of "protest".

Remember this upstanding citizen?


Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

[CaptainHoneySmacks]

I am absolutely for it. Gasp! But why Captain, do you hate America? No, I hate the low life scums that use these "protest" as excuse to be thugs and steal from local stores. It seems these days every time I hear about a protest, I hear about looting. If you can recall a recent incident with an officer shooting an unarmed man.. Yup, there was a protest. If I recall the numbers correctly, 24 local businesses were broken into and looted during the protest. Now, what exactly does the looting have to do with the shooting? Did that local business, who was probably a hard working American trying to make a living, have anything to do with the shooting? Ah, no but I bet the plasma tvs people stole from his shop did! That must be it!

Most of these protests are nothing more than hooligans trying to be cool hipsters. Destroying public property or local stores is criminal, straight up. I bet half the people at these protest don't even really know what its about. Have something you truly feel like protesting? That you feel, in your heart, is wrong? Then thats okay! Speak your mind and let others hear you. Just be careful what you let it turn into.

[skidmark]

Greetings, Cap'n.

You say you are for the law because you say you want it applied to thugs who hide behind "protests" to commit illegal acts. How come you are not satisfied with the laws already on the books about not committing those crimes? Would you explain to me why a new law was needed in order to enforce already-existing laws?

I'll wait till you respond to that before I ask you to explain how this new law avoids the slippery slope of restricting the right to assemble and to seek redress to the point of eliminating those rights.

stay safe.

[WalkingWolf]

Greetings, Cap'n.

You say you are for the law because you say you want it applied to thugs who hide behind "protests" to commit illegal acts. How come you are not satisfied with the laws already on the books about not committing those crimes? Would you explain to me why a new law was needed in order to enforce already-existing laws?

I'll wait till you respond to that before I ask you to explain how this new law avoids the slippery slope of restricting the right to assemble and to seek redress to the point of eliminating those rights.

stay safe.

Politicians write new laws to justify their existence. Otherwise what they do would be a part time job, because we already have enough laws to cover everything. If they were stopped from making new law to cover already existing law DC would shrink to almost a ghost town.

[CaptainHoneySmacks]

Greetings, Cap'n.

You say you are for the law because you say you want it applied to thugs who hide behind "protests" to commit illegal acts. How come you are not satisfied with the laws already on the books about not committing those crimes? Would you explain to me why a new law was needed in order to enforce already-existing laws?

I'll wait till you respond to that before I ask you to explain how this new law avoids the slippery slope of restricting the right to assemble and to seek redress to the point of eliminating those rights.

stay safe.

The already existing laws are obviously not working. Will new laws work? Perhaps not. Should the current laws be rewritten? Perhaps. Either way, the current law is not stopping them. Not that they would follow law, but something needs to be in place to prevent looting.

[Smith45acp]

Every time I hear someone say, "There ought to be a law _____"

Another part of my libertarian soul dies...

Thanks for that, Cap'n

[CaptainHoneySmacks]

Every time I hear someone say, "There ought to be a law _____"

Another part of my libertarian soul dies...

Thanks for that, Cap'n

Well then, what do you suggest we do? Keep allowing innocent people, who have nothing do with anything that involves the protest, to be trampled upon?

[nonameisgood]

No, we enforce property laws and fight crime as usual. We do NOT prohibit political speech and peaceful assembly.

The problem with Occupy and several other "protest" events was that many of the people were not legitimately protesting a cause, but we're protesting as a career. And as pointed out, there is a hooligan element that develops. Add to that tyranny of the masses (lynch mob mentality) and its a formula for public danger.

What we may want is a simple set of (flexible) rules that prohibit ongoing living in public spaces. Once people move in and set up semi-permanent cities, it's not really a protest.

[pfries]

I am still trying to figure out how congress believes it has the rights to make many of the laws they do. Have they not read the very constitution they swore an oath to uphold?

[Jack House]

Well then, what do you suggest we do? Keep allowing innocent people, who have nothing do with anything that involves the protest, to be trampled upon?

Ya know what, I agree with the Cap'n, new laws are needed in many states, or rather old laws be repealed. If the people that are victims of these riots were allowed to arm themselves in defense of there persons and property, then you'd have a lot less looting.





This cliche'd image of ninjas with guns atop buildings is not a screen shot from a movie. It was a photo taken during the LA riots. Korean shopkeepers armed themselves with every weapon they had, fortified their shops and very successfully defended themselves from looters and other criminals during the riots.

Who needs police when you have a group of citizens willing to arm themselves in defense of person and property against a few criminals? These Korean shopkeepers certainly didn't. Which is good, because there were no cops to protect them, despite being a priority target of many looters.

I want to make it clear that we didn't open fire first. At that time, four police cars were there. Somebody started to shoot at us. The LAPD ran away in half a second. I never saw such a fast escape. I was pretty disappointed.

If it was your own business and your own property, would you be willing to trust it to someone else? We are glad the National Guard is here. They're good backup. But when our shops were burning we called the police every five minutes; no response.

We have lost our faith in the police. Where were you when we needed you?

[twoskinsonemanns]

I am still trying to figure out how congress believes it has the rights to make many of the laws they do. Have they not read the very constitution they swore an oath to uphold?

BINGO!

This law is a poignant violation of one of those important amendments... can't think of it but I know it is in the top one!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[OC for ME]

ya know.....we need a law that makes murder illegal.....the existing one(s) don't seem to be working.

[waterfowl woody]

the best law they could make is one CRIMINALS will follow...............................oh wait thats what they have been trying to do.

It doesn't work to make new laws everytime something goes wrong, what will work is to stand up to the offenders and let them know we will not be pushed around by friend or foe! fight crime and don't watch it happen.

[nonameisgood]

People think the police know how to prevent crime, so they listen to them. Problem is, they don't know nor believe in the concept of "rights". Which gets us to the idea that the police could better protect us (from ourselves) if we were disarmed. Maybe it makes some sense to people in heavily populated areas with significant police presence, but not so much anywhere else.
It is truly a fatal error to let the police decide public policy and craft laws.

Laws should be made like consensus standards (and like most federal regs), only after input from all interested parties is considered. Any single, significant objection can kill a new regulation, or at least a provision within a rule.

[gunns]

This cliche'd image of ninjas with guns atop buildings is not a screen shot from a movie. It was a photo taken during the LA riots. Korean shopkeepers armed themselves with every weapon they had, fortified their shops and very successfully defended themselves from looters and other criminals during the riots. [/URL]

I remember some of this. Didn't these guys end up getting arrested or sued? I do remember the press saying they were extremists and were violent against non-rioters, or something like it. Of course it was BS, these guys were only protecting their own.

[VW_Factor]

The already existing laws are obviously not working. Will new laws work? Perhaps not. Should the current laws be rewritten? Perhaps. Either way, the current law is not stopping them. Not that they would follow law, but something needs to be in place to prevent looting.

There is a problem with this line of thinking.

You somehow think that criminals are going to follow the law.

There is something already in place to prevent looting, however criminals won't follow that either.

[VW_Factor]

Ya know what, I agree with the Cap'n, new laws are needed in many states, or rather old laws be repealed. If the people that are victims of these riots were allowed to arm themselves in defense of there persons and property, then you'd have a lot less looting.





This cliche'd image of ninjas with guns atop buildings is not a screen shot from a movie. It was a photo taken during the LA riots. Korean shopkeepers armed themselves with every weapon they had, fortified their shops and very successfully defended themselves from looters and other criminals during the riots.

Who needs police when you have a group of citizens willing to arm themselves in defense of person and property against a few criminals? These Korean shopkeepers certainly didn't. Which is good, because there were no cops to protect them, despite being a priority target of many looters.

this essentially was going to be part of my response. Glad someone was on top of this.

[Jack House]

I remember some of this. Didn't these guys end up getting arrested or sued? I do remember the press saying they were extremists and were violent against non-rioters, or something like it. Of course it was BS, these guys were only protecting their own.

I'm not sure. I was too young to remember, I was 5 or 6 at the time. I don't remember reading reports their were arrested or sued, but it wouldn't surprise me if they were.

The media definitely demonized them a lot, calling them vigilantes and claiming they opened fire first. That's what the David Joo quote is about, the media was reporting they fired first, when in reality two women had been shot by the looters and that's why they opened fire.

[KYGlockster]

The already existing laws are obviously not working. Will new laws work? Perhaps not. Should the current laws be rewritten? Perhaps. Either way, the current law is not stopping them. Not that they would follow law, but something needs to be in place to prevent looting.

You contradict yourself sir. You say they don't obey the current law, yet you believe they will obey this law? We do not need more laws because they do nothing to PREVENT crime, they merely punish those who are dumb enough to get caught after the crime has been COMMITTED. We do not need any law that can be used to restrict the rights of American citizens, regardless of what it will supposedly do! I can defend myself, just as citizens of this country did for hundreds of years until we became a police state. The current laws do not work because no law will, and if they did we would live in a utopian society! We need to harshly punish people who are convicted of ACTUAL crimes, and not some BS mala prohibita nonsense that those in DC think is best for us (their minions). Sure we can give people a chance, but how many chances should someone get? When we allow people to walk the street who have been released 8 or 10 times from prison for felony convictions, then something isn't working, and that is called the Justice System!