Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #78 - noblexfenrir (04/28/2013) [-]
I'm conflicted with this, I do hate this group and what they do...however they are american citizens who in essence have every right to do what they do, they are breaking no laws...they shouldn't be jailed.
#159 to #78 - reginleif ONLINE (04/28/2013) [-]
This image has expired
I gave you a thumb, for what little good that will do.

You are a voice of reason in this hell filled with edgy teenagers, dogmatists and Eurofags.
User avatar #176 to #159 - noblexfenrir (04/28/2013) [-]
It does a world of good, it reminds me there are people who understand what the constitution represents.
#119 to #78 - anon (04/28/2013) [-]
defends constitutional rights

anal trauma

User avatar #96 to #78 - noblexfenrir (04/28/2013) [-]
Are there really this many people against allowing the very freedoms they enjoy? How sad.
User avatar #104 to #96 - Endofzeeworld ONLINE (04/28/2013) [-]
I completely agree with you. Freedom of Speech isn't just for people who want to bad-mouth the government. Freedom of Speech is for everyone.
User avatar #111 to #104 - noblexfenrir (04/28/2013) [-]
Thank you, someone else who understands.

People can not just say "I don't like what they say or how they say it, therefor they are criminals" and just not see the detrimental effects of that thinking. Some day the luxury of being on the side of the majority may not be theirs and I have no doubt their tone would change.
User avatar #87 to #85 - noblexfenrir (04/28/2013) [-]
Pretty much.
User avatar #81 to #78 - PapaParuta (04/28/2013) [-]
No offense, but **** you
User avatar #83 to #81 - noblexfenrir (04/28/2013) [-]

They are complete and utter assholes, but they have every right to be. Just as you have every single ******* right to voice any goddamn opinion you have without hindrance.

Do I like them? No, do I hate their existence? Yes. But am I honestly going to say they should have their basic rights removes because I don't like what they say or how they say it? **** no.
User avatar #100 to #83 - hybredmoon (04/28/2013) [-]
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should look on and do nothing ."
"There is, however, a limit at which forbearance ceases to be a virtue."
Both of those quotes are from Edmund Burke

Our laws were created with the goal of protecting good people from the machinations of bad people.

Is WBC breaking the law? No. Are they bad people? Without a doubt. They are exploiting our laws for their own protection and using them as a shield while they harass good people. A hero does what's right, regardless of the laws in place. As far as I am concerned, those Texas officers are heroes.
User avatar #107 to #100 - noblexfenrir (04/28/2013) [-]
Evil is very subjective as a term. I would easily call a country that persecutes on a simple difference of ideals to be horribly evil.

Our laws are created so people have the freedom to think and act anyway they choose, without hindering the rights of others or breaking the laws we hold in place that do essentially the same. Our laws are not made to protect good people from bad, they are made for people to choose their own paths with the desire that given such, the good majority will always prevail. This has shown itself many times in the U.S. and will many times in the future.

Those texas officers have their hearts in the right place, but what they did was wrong. They arrested citizens for simply doing something they didn't like, that isn't a U.S. ideal, it's more along the lines of communist russia.

We cannot sit here and say that moral relativity does not exist, nor should others be punished for it.
User avatar #120 to #107 - hybredmoon (04/28/2013) [-]
The point is moot. On the surface it's obvious what is right here and what isn't. But let me see if I can look at it from your perspective.

You're saying that what the police did is wrong, because what the WBC isn't breaking any laws, yes?
User avatar #127 to #120 - noblexfenrir (04/28/2013) [-]
No it isn't obvious, you cannot declare a moral issue right and wrong in the sense of the law, actions are more malleable with this but ideals?

I'm saying what the police did is the wrong action because they were breaking no laws, they were infringing on no rights, and they have the freedom to say and protest what they wish.
User avatar #156 to #127 - hybredmoon (04/28/2013) [-]
Also, in this situation, they aren't being 'arrested' they are being 'detained' Big difference. That's why, if a police officer stops you on the street to question you, the first thing out of your mouth should be "Am I being detained?" cause if the answer is 'No' then you can walk away right then and you aren't obligated to say **** to him.
User avatar #175 to #156 - noblexfenrir (04/28/2013) [-]
Hm..but I thought I could be detained for no reason, in which case he could easily just say yes and hold me for however long he had to ask questions....unless...he needed probable cause....which you literally just said they didn't need.
User avatar #150 to #127 - hybredmoon (04/28/2013) [-]
1) yes it is obvious
2)"They were breaking no laws" (I'll get to this in a second)
3)"They were infringing on no rights" Yes, they were. They were infringing on the right of those families to have a funeral and to mourn without being harassed
4)"They have the freedom to say and protest what they wish" This is a falsity. Freedom of speech is not a get out of jail free card allowing you to say whatever you want whenever you please. For example I cannot stand outside my black neighbors house and call him a ****** all day, that's harassment and nullifies my freedom of speech.

2)Continued: this is faulty logic to begin with. You say the WBC broke no laws, fine. The police didn't break any laws either. They are legally allowed to hold them for 24 hours for no reason at all. Is that wrong? Yea, it's almost as wrong as protesting a funeral. But, as you yourself are implying there is no room for morals when it comes to the law. So even when I look at this situation with YOUR logic the police did not only do what is right, but what they are legally allowed to do. The WBC is technically allowed to protest, well, the Texas law is legally allowed to throw them in jail for 24 hours. Not seeing a problem here.
User avatar #172 to #150 - noblexfenrir (04/28/2013) [-]
1.) No it isn't. Morality is subjective as are ideals, to simply say that someone can be persecuted because of theirs is not only false but means you forfeit every single opinion you have that disagrees with the majority.

2.) Actually no, they need probable cause. If a police officer detains you without a reason, they would lose their job. This is why if they have no probable cause you can simply ask to leave when you're pulled over, if they detain you, they need a reason, otherwise you can simply drive off, any third rate texas drunk driving lawyer knows this off the top of his head. In this situation, they had no probable cause that I can see from the post. So please, actually look up what you're trying to discuss when looking at it from my view.

If they were allowed to detain with no reason legally, I would have less of a problem, there would still be the constitution issue but not as much a legal one.

3.) Unfortunately that is not a right, it's something given out of respect but when concerning a peaceful protest (Which is a right) it doesn't hold precedence. Otherwise the government could call the police on every protest simply because they didn't like the subject matter and it was annoying them. Harassment and a peaceful protest are two entirely different matters. (and before it's brought up, peaceful in execution not in subject matter.)

4.) Again, harassment is different from protests. An individual vs individual basis is taken much more seriously than group vs group.b If I stood outside my senator's house and screamed filthy republican/democrat at the top of my lungs, etc. I would be rights held for harassment. However if I'm in front of the capital building simply protesting the government and calling them pigs, this is not harassment.

The fact is, the right to free speech allows you to say what is on your mind, the right to protest allows you to express your ideals with no mind to those who find those ideals distasteful.
#202 to #172 - hybredmoon (04/28/2013) [-]

Sec. 42.055. FUNERAL SERVICE DISRUPTIONS. (a) In this section:
(1) "Facility" means a building at which any portion of a funeral service takes place, including a funeral parlor, mortuary, private home, or established place of worship.

(2) "Funeral service" means a ceremony, procession, or memorial service, including a wake or viewing, held in connection with the burial or cremation of the dead.
(3) "Picketing" means:
(A) standing, sitting, or repeated walking, riding, driving, or other similar action by a person displaying or carrying a banner, placard, or sign;
(B) engaging in loud singing, chanting, whistling, or yelling, with or without noise amplification through a device such as a bullhorn or microphone; or
(C) blocking access to a facility or cemetery being used for a funeral service.
(b) A person commits an offense if, during the period beginning three hours before the service begins and ending three hours after the service is completed, the person engages in picketing within 1,000 feet of a facility or cemetery being used for a funeral service.
(c) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor.

This is lifted directly from the texas penal code http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.42.htm

Probable cause is a level of reasonable belief, based on facts that can be articulated, that is required to sue a person in civil court or to arrest and prosecute a person in criminal court. Before a person can be sued or arrested and prosecuted, the civil plaintiff or police and prosecutor must possess enough facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the claim or charge is true.
This is from an online legal dictionary legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/probable+cause

I believe it is safe to assume, based on WBC's past actions, the police acted within their rights according to texas law.
User avatar #212 to #202 - noblexfenrir (04/28/2013) [-]
Yes and they follow these guidelines when present. (They are basically 90% lawyers, you wouldn't think they'd know this?) Sometimes not even talking at their protests simply to avoid all noise implications with the law.

There is also a non-existent form of probable cause here considering they don't have a history of breaking the law, nor infringing on the rights of others during their protests. (Since they do follow the guidelines the state requires for protests)

The only probable cause I can see here is maybe the police using the past forms of protest in different states/events that would have broken this specific clause, in application here. But that's a weak and ridiculous argument.
#224 to #212 - hybredmoon (04/28/2013) [-]
The only weak and ridicules thing here is your continuing support of these dick heads. I've given you the benefit of the doubt, I've given you logic, I've given you referenced undeniable laws and yet you continue to defend these idiotic hate mongers. And the best you can come up with is "No, they don't do it like that."

I suppose unless I find a law that specifically gives their first middle and last names and expressly forbids those individuals from being in that specific location at that specific point in time you'll still say it was ok. Well you're wrong.

The police were in the clear morally and legally. End of story. YOU are just a troll who will argue the opposite view point no matter what just because you like the attention. My only regret is that I've given you so much of mine.

No, I take that back, it was mildly amusing watching you repeat already defeated points and make up unproven possibilities out of thin air to respond to facts, but it has lost it's appeal. I'm done with you now, you no longer amuse me.
User avatar #239 to #224 - noblexfenrir (04/28/2013) [-]
My lord how pathetic you are.

You haven't given me the benefit of the doubt, you've assumed some of what I said was true to try and further your point, however ALL that I have said is true, and your points have been flawed.

You obviously haven't given me logic since all of your reasons were based on a misunderstanding of the reasons for laws or extending laws past what they state.

You referenced a law, good for you, the problem is THEY FOLLOW THE ******* GUIDELINES OF THAT LAW YOU IGNORANT FOOL. I don't say "No, they don't do it like that" I explained how they don't. Because, here's a big shocker for you, if you actually follow the guidelines of a law, YOU CAN''T BE ARRESTED FOR BREAKING THAT LAW.

"The only weak and ridicules thing here is your continuing support of these dick heads."
I don't support them, I'm supporting the constitution and what it entails.

"I suppose unless I find a law that specifically gives their first middle and last names and expressly forbids those individuals from being in that specific location at that specific point in time you'll still say it was ok. Well you're wrong."

Actually no, if there is a law that says they aren't allowed to be within 1000 feet of a funeral, and their 850 feet away, arrest them and put them through whatever legal proceedings are the result. However, if the law says "1000 feet" and they are 1001 feet away I will tell you day in and day out it is wrong to arrest them for a law they did not break.

"The police were in the clear morally and legally."
Again morality is subjective so they could have been morally reasonable, but legally no they were not clear.

"YOU are just a troll who will argue the opposite view point no matter what just because you like the attention."
You're right how could anyone possibly side with the ******* constitution.

User avatar #242 to #239 - noblexfenrir (04/28/2013) [-]
" No, I take that back, it was mildly amusing watching you repeat already defeated points and make up unproven possibilities out of thin air to respond to facts, but it has lost it's appeal. I'm done with you now, you no longer amuse me."

You never defeated any point, I never made up an unproven possibility to respond to your "facts" (please cite them and I'll explain where the misconception is)

Otherwise, your an idiotic fool who shows he knows nothing he's been talking about this entire time. I support the law and the constitution, you only care about what YOU think is right and should be supported, how dare anyone else have a different opinion right? Their opinion can be wrong, but they are allowed to have and express it,


You forfeit this right to them, you forfeit it to yourself.
User avatar #91 to #83 - PapaParuta (04/28/2013) [-]
I realize that it is their right to be a group of intolerable assholes. But they are crossing lines that they have no right to cross. Picketing the funerals of children and those who have given their life to defend America's freedom is simply an unacceptable act of hatred.
#118 to #91 - anon (04/28/2013) [-]
responding to crossing a line by crossing a line isn't any better
User avatar #95 to #91 - noblexfenrir (04/28/2013) [-]
There is no set of "moral laws" that if you break you have your rights removed. You either commit an illegal act or interfere with the rights of others. They are doing neither unfortunately.

As I said, we don't like them, we don't like what they say, and we don't like how they say it.
But they are perfectly within their rights to say and say it however they please.

Unless you feel simply being morally different should be an act that deserves you be jailed, in that case, we would have never made as much progress as we have now.
User avatar #112 to #95 - ilovehitler (04/28/2013) [-]
I'm fairly sure they AREN'T within their rights, as what they are doing constitutes harassment.
User avatar #114 to #112 - noblexfenrir (04/28/2013) [-]
They are protesting which they are allowed to do. I don't like the subject matter they choose to protest but I can't tell them not to.
User avatar #124 to #114 - ilovehitler (04/28/2013) [-]
Harassment: to disturb persistently; torment, as with troubles or cares; bother continually; pester; persecute.

A good lawyer could easily get them charged with harassment, as they are continuously tormenting, disturbing, and persecuting gays, albeit verbally.
#216 to #124 - anon (04/28/2013) [-]
its a sad day when somebody gets downvoted for not defending the wbc
User avatar #134 to #124 - noblexfenrir (04/28/2013) [-]
There are other inclusions when it comes to protesting, otherwise every single protest could have the cops called on them.

A formal protest that is peaceful (and you know what I mean, in action not subject matter) is perfectly fine. They would have to be doing something that hinders on someones well-being while protesting that would constitute harassment besides the simple act of them being there and preaching what they believe.
 Friends (0)