Protest doesn’t negate other laws. If me and some friends decide to protest by murdering people, that doesn’t make it legal.
They have a Constitutionally-enumerated right to protest. Again, see the 1st Amendment. Peaceably assemble, redress.
We do not have a comparable right to heist banks or invade homes.
We aren’t talking about planning a legal peaceful protest. We are talking about planning a crime. Blocking the roadway was a crime. Planning it was a criminal conspiracy. Doesn’t matter if you are protesting or having a BBQ.
The Constitution does not mention “legal” protest.
This country was founded on civil disobedience and protest.
It was the correct ruling. Have a nice day.
If it wasn’t a crime, it wouldn’t be called civil disobedience.
Or the violation of an ordinance, correct. And that is why the people in the road (or throwing bricks) are arrested, not the planner.
You want him punished for incitement to violence for inciting a protest. There is no such thing as “incitement to trespass”. He wasn’t charged criminally, so let’s work around it? The OJ Rule? No.
We are each responsible for our own actions. Mass punishment is an abomination to a free man.
The ruling was correct.
Have a nice day.
How is holding the person responsible for planning a criminal act an example of mass punishment? I am unsure how the notion that if you attach the word protest to your criminal acts and conspiracy it somehow negates the laws you broke.
There’s no constitutional right to burn, loot, beat, and kill. In other words riot.
That’s what pretty much all these “protests” turn into.
Yes exactly. Just because CD occurs at a protest, does not make it an illegal protest.
I have been at organized protests that included CD.
I did not partake in the illegal part. So I am a legal protestor at a legal protest.
Protests are covered by the first amendment.
Allan
That changes the minute you plan with someone else to break the law. Not plan a legal protest.
So as long as I stay legal, it’s a legal protest? But if the organizer makes it an illegal protest. It’s an illegal protest with legal participants.
I am at a loss of what point you are trying to make.
Allan
In order for a protestor to be held liable they would have to know or be in on planning the illegal act. Whatever that illegal act may be. SO we don’t get bogged down in semantics, again, the illegal act in this case being blocking the highway, not protesting.
The illegal act is criminal.
A legal act is protesting
Just because an illegal act occurs during a legal protest, that does not make the protest illegal.
It’s a legal protest where illegal things occurred.
Allan
Illegal protest is a poor choice of words. The illegality was in organizing the illegal act of blocking the highway, for what purpose is irrelevant. There is no exception to the statute for protesting. The first amendment does not provide a shield for illegal behavior or conspiracy.
1 Like
I didn’t say that at all.
thats what it sounds like to me
Not what I said, even if you heard it that way.
This action should have been barred by the “fireman’s rule” anyway. This is a legal principal that public safety officers who are injured in the course of their duties cannot maintain a lawsuit against the person(s) who caused the injury. To the best of my knowledge, the “fireman’s rule” is part of Louisiana law. See Worley v. Winston, 550 So.2d 694, 696 (La.App. 2d Cir.), writ denied, 551 So.2d 1342 (La. 1989).
So Charley Manson was wrongly convicted.
