Guard at the Tomb of The Unknown Soldier maintains proper decorum.

[KBCraig]

What do you think happens in every courtroom in this country everyday?

Unchecked tyranny, for the most part.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP What in the hell does the 4th Amendment have to to with anything?

Nothing. I used the Mendenhall quote to show compulsion, not seizure. I think that either Brass Magnet was typing in a 4A rut, or he misunderstood my point. I'll let him clarify if he chooses.

---------------


For everybody,

I think we all know that the sentry's choice of the word request has little bearing on the matter. Using cops as an example, imagine for a moment that you are cuffed, custodially searched, stuffed in a patrol car, and driven to a magistrate, the cop the whole while refraining from uttering the words "you're under arrest". Does this mean an arrest did not occur? Just because the cop didn't use the word? The reverse is true, we've all read OCer reports of cops who said the OCer wasn't detained, yet followed that with a demand for ID, or not permitting the OCer to leave.

I'm gonna stand firm on the compulsory nature of the sentry's demand. I understand others feel very strongly about this subject, and may argue the point. I don't think I can bring any other evidence to the table.

 

[Brass Magnet]

Nothing. I used the Mendenhall quote to show compulsion, not seizure. I think that either Brass Magnet was typing in a 4A rut, or he misunderstood my point. I'll let him clarify if he chooses.

I'm using it the same way. I may not have made it clear enough. My point was that the test (showing compulsion/coercion) from that 4A case can be used here and has been used to show when someone had been coerced into giving up 5A rights as well.

I know I typed that somewhere.....

Oh well, Packers won and it's past my bed time.

 

[Citizen]

An interesting little something I noticed on the radio this evening. Its not really applicable here, except in the most tangential way. But, it caught my ear; I didn't think it merited its own thread; I just had to tell somebody; and it is kinda, sorta, remotely related to this thread.

Recently there was some gunfire near the White House. I live in the same radio market, so I get to hear about the investigation and the guy the police are after.

On the radio this evening, the radio station actually forwarded the police comment that the police "encourage him [the suspect] to come forward and tell his side of the story."

Uh-huh. Suuuuuuuure. Translation: "Turn yourself in and waive your 5A right to silence."

We all see daily the big examples of people's willlingness to tolerate and active encouragement of erosion of rights. This one was more subtle. Just a little comment hanging out there. Forwarded by media--the (supposed) watchdogs over government. Active encouragement to waive a right.

 

[Citizen]

I'm using it the same way. I may not have made it clear enough. My point was that the test (showing compulsion/coercion) from that 4A case can be used here and has been used to show when someone had been coerced into giving up 5A rights as well.

I know I typed that somewhere....

Sorry. Teach me to read more before putting words in somebody's m---keyboard.

 

[MilProGuy]

...gunfire near the White House...

...On the radio this evening, the radio station actually forwarded the police comment that the police "encourage him [the suspect] to come forward and tell his side of the story."

Uh-huh. Suuuuuuuure. Translation: "Turn yourself in and waive your 5A right to silence."

I hope he doesn't exercise the 5th...I'd like to hear what kind of lamebrain excuse he could come up with for shooting a firearm in close proximity to the White House.

 

[Citizen]

I hope he doesn't exercise the 5th...I'd like to hear what kind of lamebrain excuse he could come up with for shooting a firearm in close proximity to the White House.

I'll make this one quick reply and let it go at that. I don't want to drag the thread off-topic too far.

Some problems are:

That we don't know he did it. All we have is the police saying they have certain things that lead them to him.

Regarding the 5th Amendment, it is already well understood that even the truthful answers of an innocent person can be used to against him in court. See the video linked below by Professor James Duane of Regent University Law School.

Also, as the US Supreme Court discussed in both Ohio vs Reiner and Ullman vs US, one of the purposes of the 5A right to silence is to protect innocent people.


Video by Prof James Duane: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
The Professor speaks first in support of 5A, giving examples of why not to talk to police. Then a police detective speaks. Pay close attention to what the detective says when he arrives at the podium.

 

[Brass Magnet]

I humbly "request" that next time you post outside of my quote as it's hard as heck to straighten everything out. I started separating everything but it was taking forever so if anyone is confused they can read above. I hate how the newer forum software handles quotes BTW.

The courts have ruled otherwise, cited a ruling that seems to apply.

Are you saying you cited a ruling that applies? I can't tell because you deleted your posts.

Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S.Ct. 247, 63 L.Ed.2d. (1919)
"The question, is whether the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has the right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree."

Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357 (1927)Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties; and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.

Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.

Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

The BoR was set up to protect the citizenry from the 'state'.

Two sides of the same coin. The state is the de facto majority.

Technically, the majority in elected office makes the laws, not the majority of the citizenry. All ya have to do is read polls regarding the minority of folks 'ruling' over and against the majority.

Your just arguing semantics and technicalities here which you pretty much admitted.

Read the cited case.

Again, which cited case? If you are talking about Mendenhall, I've already clarified. If it's something you cited, you deleted it. Please cite it again. Regardless, I believe the cases I cited above make clear it's not harmful speech.

Hyperbole.

Well yeah. I nearly admitted as much. That's irrelevant to the point I was attempting to make.

Nice try BM, but no dice. Your attempts at rationalizing what we would like into what is will not work. Restrictions on reasonable speech exist, like it or not, maybe even giggling.

So, is your argument that restrictions on reasonable speech exist, and in this case you are all for the restrictions? If that's so, where do you draw the line?

Irrelevant in the context of the OP, this was not a case of protesting. Keep working it though, sounds good on 'paper'.

It's plenty relevant to my argument, which you seem to be missing. This thread has gone far from the OP. It's relevant because protesting is something more disruptive than petty giggling, yet it's protected. The people dancing at the Jefferson memorial were arrested without making a sound.

All the knuckle-headed gigglers had to do was stand up for their rights and continue their disrespectful giggling. Because, we all know that active duty military have arrest powers over civilians. And, technically, the sentry is not an 'agent of the state' as you, and others, attempt to define him. He is a dude 'guarding' a tomb. If those POS gigglers rushed the tomb then he would be that 'agent of the state' doing his job of protecting the tomb.

Your efforts are to be commended, especially in the face of case law, in defending the rights of those who may need no defense.

Haha, so your argument is that he's a "dude guarding a tomb" and not an agent of the state but if the gigglers "attacked" then he'd be an agent? Now that's contradictory.

Do you really think they wouldn't be arrested if they continued? Some certain dancers at the Jefferson Memorial disagree.

 

[wrightme]

I humbly "request" that next time you post outside of my quote as it's hard as heck to straighten everything out. I started separating everything but it was taking forever so if anyone is confused they can read above. I hate how the newer forum software handles quotes BTW.

That is a reasonable request. But, this software handles it MUCH BETTER than the former forum software did. At least with this software, you can separate out quote portions. With the OLD software, it was simpler to add text into the existing quotes than it was to segment them out as can easily be done with this software.

 

[Brass Magnet]

That is a reasonable request. But, this software handles it MUCH BETTER than the former forum software did. At least with this software, you can separate out quote portions. With the OLD software, it was simpler to add text into the existing quotes than it was to segment them out as can easily be done with this software.

Yeah, it was simpler to add text to the existing quotes but the old software also quoted quotes. They disappear with this version which is what bugs me. I guess I just prefer the old way of handling them.

 

[wrightme]

That is a reasonable request. But, this software handles it MUCH BETTER than the former forum software did. At least with this software, you can separate out quote portions. With the OLD software, it was simpler to add text into the existing quotes than it was to segment them out as can easily be done with this software.

Yeah, it was simpler to add text to the existing quotes but the old software also quoted quotes. They disappear with this version which is what bugs me. I guess I just prefer the old way of handling them.

Click the quote+ icon next to each desired post, then click quote. If you feel the need to "nest" them, cut/paste in the editing window..... VOILA!

That is a reasonable request. But, this software handles it MUCH BETTER than the former forum software did. At least with this software, you can separate out quote portions. With the OLD software, it was simpler to add text into the existing quotes than it was to segment them out as can easily be done with this software.

Yeah, it was simpler to add text to the existing quotes but the old software also quoted quotes. They disappear with this version which is what bugs me. I guess I just prefer the old way of handling them.

It REALLY is simple to do in this software.

 

[Brass Magnet]

Click the quote+ icon next to each desired post, then click quote. If you feel the need to "nest" them, cut/paste in the editing window..... VOILA!

It REALLY is simple to do in this software.

Yes, I'm aware of that and it is handier in certain instances. Thanks though.

 

[Brass Magnet]

Sorry, I think that this case may be relevant: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=491&invol=781.

Interesting read, I disagree with the courts decision, yet is was a 6-3 decision. Bigger brains than mine can work out the complexities of what should be vs. what is. I'll stick with what is and go from there.

You are correct in every assertion regarding the chuckle-heads right to giggle wherever they wish. They must be willing to endure any consequences for their 1A protected expressions when they find out that their expression was not as protected as they thought. I do not know the facts regarding what the sentry can/can not do, so I will not second guess his authority in that situation. If he exceeded his authority I am sure the Army will conduct the proper review and remedial training.

With this being said, the 'state' can and has, narrowly defined that even giggling in the wrong place, at the wrong time, may be a 1A expression that can be prohibited. So decreed the SCOTUS, narrowly that is.

Thanks, I also tend to agree with the dissenting opinion. Stuff like this is the "death by a thousand cuts" that we've been suffering for a long time. In giving the government broader power by abandoning the requirement that government use the least intrusive means possible, yet another cut is made. This decision also effectively constitutional legitimized certain prior restraints on the speech.

Isn't it interesting how we went from restricting speech "if the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has the right to prevent." to "if there is a substantive government interest". Sounds kind of like the "reasonable restrictions" on the 2A.

I think that parts of this may be applicable to the current discussion but basically those parts are the further cites given within the opinion and not necessarily the opinion itself. The case is quite different. I'll definitely look more into the cites given within the opinion.

 

[Gunslinger]

Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), as well as other, inter alia. I don't know what the ******* 'gigglers' were talking about, but it may or may not rise to "fighting words," which are not protected speech under the 1st Amendment. Other than that, I've said what I want on this thread and have great respect for the member of the "Old Guard" who did his duty on hallowed ground.

 

[Jim675]

Fair disclosure:

1. I was 'miffed' at the comments regarding the sentry as a 'agent of the state', as if he were no different and acting no differently on the job than your run of the mill LEO. He is a dude, just as I was, who volunteered, and volunteered again, and again and then is told to guard something. He thought he knew exactly what he could and could not do in that situation because he did what he did.
SNIP...

This is the recipe for how to grow tyranny. Hitler and his top aides may be evil, but the overwhelming majority of those who carried out the work were not. Just people doing what they thought was correct in a given situation. Many of whom volunteered with pride to do good.

School board member who approved the locker and strip searches for drugs were just trying to do what they thought was best.

And both the guard (with whom I'm much more empathetic) and the school board member need to be constantly monitored and reevaluated to see if they are overstepping. Because the impact of any government power granted is too much to allow carelessly.

If laughter at that very solemn shrine is intolerable, what are the limits of the force we would apply to stop it? After the guard's stern words perhaps the Nat'l Park Service, DC police, an Army quick reaction force?

In the end, if the majority of the people feel solemn they will enforce others' behavior as well. If the majority do not feel the site's sacredness then who's will is the soldier enforcing?

 

[Citizen]

SNIP On the radio this evening, the radio station actually forwarded the police comment that the police "encourage him [the suspect] to come forward and tell his side of the story."

Uh-huh. Suuuuuuuure. Translation: "Turn yourself in and waive your 5A right to silence."

We all see daily the big examples of people's willlingness to tolerate and active encouragement of erosion of rights. This one was more subtle. Just a little comment hanging out there. Forwarded by media--the (supposed) watchdogs over government. Active encouragement to waive a right.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaugh!!!! Again!

This evening, relative to an incident at a parking lot in Northern VA, police are asking some suspect to come forward and "tell his side of the story." Actual recording of the cop spokesman this time. Same radio station.

What is this? Some new tactic police are using? Anybody else heard of this in their area?

 

[Citizen]

For the sentry supporters:

Whose natural rights are violated, meaning who is harmed?

 

[MilProGuy]

...maybe we need a new set of judges that can read the plain language contained within the constitution.

I think you're definitely onto the right solution! :monkey

 

[okboomer]

Uh-huh. Suuuuuure. "It is requested that everyone maintains a level of silence and respect!" (bold emphasis added by Citizen)

Explaining how the government can demand silence and not curtail or deny freedom of speech should be an entertaining exercise in textual gymnastics, altered meanings, and careful omissions. But, I'm ready to be entertained. Lay it on me. (rhetorical)

And, let me make really sure I understand your assertion. The best way to honor the sacrifice of the Unknown is for the government guard to deny one of the very rights the Unknown died for?

Listen, we appreciate your patriotism. God knows there are plenty of socialists and worse in this country. But, lets keep it in perspective. Patriotism is for support of rights. Not the other way around. To say otherwise is to say that patriotism is more important than the rights for which we feel patriotic.

OK, Jarhead, this BAM says ...

Actually, you are the one ascribing "government" overtones to what happened.

I disagree that the "government" had any involvement at all. The procedure and decorum at that tomb was determined by the Army Protocol office (The Old Guard Regiment) and the history of the Tomb can be seen here: http://www.tombguard.org/site.html

Another site is here: http://www.homeofheroes.com/gravesites/unknowns/0_unknowns_sentinels.html

So, from what you have posted here, you are of the opinion that any/all military service (wo)men are "government agents"? Shame on you for intimating that as I believe you actually should/do know better.

The government may give them their orders and direction, but it is the American Public that they ultimately answer to. To illustrate this, look at how the American public turned against the Vietnam war and how the soldiers from that war were hurt and damaged by that public opinion. I have had too many Vietnam Vets tell me how thankful they were that they finally got a war memorial and just how powerful the memorial is in their life. The next time the Vietnam War Memorial comes to your area, go down and talk to some of the Vets and ask them how many times they have visited the Memorial ... you might be surprised at the answers you get.

 

[okboomer]

A couple random observations. Just to keep the conversation going.

1. The sentry is armed with a bayonetted rifle. Presumably to prevent physical desecration of the grave.

There is a big wide difference between physical desecration and mere transitory laughter.

Does a shrine really need an armed sentry to prevent disrespectful unsilence? Are the sentry's supporters really prepared to say that mere words or laughter can actually desecrate the stone of the tomb? Much less penetrate inside and physically disturb some tiny fragment of the remains? Does a sentry really need a bayonet to spear the laughter sound waves before they reach the tomb?

2. Of course, there is the bad manners and lack of respect for other viewers behind the velvet rope. But, the discussion and the laughter are merely transitory. Are we really willing to say that an armed sentry is needed to solve the problem, and empower him to violate 1A speech rights, when a non-infringing solution is for any offended viewers to just wait a moment until the unrespectful ones leave? And, wouldn't it be better to just put up a sign reminding clueless visitors that silence is appreciated by other visitors?

And what about the imposition upon actual mourners at the Tomb who were disturbed by the "mere transitory laughter"?

Again, displays of disrespect are symptoms of the ills in this nation. How many times do you see the American Flag being raised and no one stops and faces the flag and salutes or places their right hand over their heart these days? I guarantee that every military base comes to a complete hault when the colors are raised or lowered.

Is it too much to ask for solemnity and silence at a Tomb? Not in my book. I will (and have) defend the rights of all Americans to be as stupid and ignorant as they want, but I will also require respect at funerals and grave sites and tombs for any who served. That is also why graves even in the smallest cemetaries have service markers for service members. So NO ONE FORGETS their service.