Posted on 10/19/2006 11:03:05 AM PDT by Res Nullius
Minutemen can't meet at Selah venue By ROD ANTONE YAKIMA HERALD-REPUBLIC
Citing safety and manpower concerns, Selah Civic Center administrators have denied meeting space to a local chapter of the controversial Minuteman Civil Defense Corps.
The group had asked to hold regular Sunday afternoon meetings in the center, which is owned by the city of Selah and operated by a city-appointed board.
But Vern Larson, the board's chairman, confirmed the board turned down the application on the police department's recommendation.
"We usually abide by what police suggest," Larson said.
Bob Dameron, the Minuteman chapter leader, said a letter denying the request -- and a check refunding the group's $75 deposit on the space -- arrived in the mail Wednesday.
"It's absolutely removing our constitutional right to meet," Dameron said. "We have good, clean outstanding people in our organization. Personally, I'd like to fight this, but it's not up to me. I'm going to take it up our chain of command and see what they want to do."
The Arizona-based Minuteman organization has gained national attention as a citizen watchdog group whose members patrol U.S. borders and report illegal activities to law enforcement. Although the group claims to be nonviolent, Chief Rick Gutierrez of the Selah police said he was concerned about documented clashes in other parts of the country between the organization and those protesting them.
"If 20 protesters and 20 Minutemen get into it, the four officers I have on day shift won't be able to handle that," Gutierrez said. "I'd have to call in officers on overtime, Sheriff's Office, State Patrol, Yakima (police). We just don't have the resources to handle something like that."
Dameron couldn't say how many people Minuteman meetings could draw. A number of local members are out of town patrolling borders, he said. The civic center can accommodate 105 people.
Earlier this week, Minuteman protesters at a Portland day-labor pick-up site encountered some rock throwing and shouting matches. And earlier this month, students at New York's Columbia University attacked Minuteman founder Jim Gilchrist, who'd been invited to speaker to the Columbia College Republicans.
Minutemen have also been being arrested or placed under police protection during demonstrations in largely Hispanic neighborhoods in California.
Chief Gutierrez noted that his concerns are not just for the community and residents, but for protesters and Minuteman members themselves.
"It's a double-edged sword. If we allow them to meet and someone gets hurt, we'll be blamed. And if we don't let them meet, people will say we're discriminating against them," he said.
Local immigrant-rights advocacy groups -- whose members worry about the fact that Minutemen are armed while they patrol borders -- are closely watching the organization and promise protests if the group gathers.
"We would definitely be there," said Maria Cuebas of Aguilas De Norte. "Undocumented immigrants are protected by our Constitution, and no one has the right to detain another person.
"But I would hope that this wouldn't erupt into anything violent or negative."
Selah Mayor Bob Jones said the Minuteman request puts the city in a "tough spot."
"It puts us in a curious decision, because we don't have a lot of police officers in case there is a confrontation," he said. "But people have constitutional rights, freedom of speech, freedom to gather. That's what this country is built upon."
* Rod Antone can be reached at 577-7628 or rantone@yakima-herald.com
The ACLU would be all over this if it was a bunch of faggots and dykes that were denied a permit.
Where's the equal protection clause?
Sorry, but that typically applies to large gatherings that require such logistics as porta-potties and cops for traffic control.
A small gathering in a public building is NOT liable for the fact that they may get illegally attacked for thugs. Otherwise, using your logic, someone who gets mugged needs to pay for the police time used to catch the perp.
Idiotic? Get real. Your argument would be valid for the people (Minutemen) renting the space indoors. In this particular instance it was refused because of the imagined costs caused by the protesters who would not be paying anything outside.
Well then, Chief Gutierrez, you should err on the side of these citizens' civil rights.
The ACLU would jump down the city's throat if they had made the same decision against the KKK, the Revolutionary Communist Party or NAMBLA. I expect we'll here crickets before we hear that the ACLU takes up the issue of the Minutemen's rights to use a city (taxpayer funded) facility.
It also applies to groups of any nature--political or otherwise--that would require large numbers of additional police officers present to maintain public order. It is a cost of doing business. Like I said, I've been there and done that back in the day.
Because logic dictates that the Klan did not and could not pay for the full costs of their Toledo rally a couple of years ago.
But nice try at impunging my motives (not that you doing such is a surprise).
They get billed, at least around here. I once pulled overtime to protect Tommy Metzger's fat a$$ when he lived in Fallbrook and had a march down in San Diego. Yes, the KKK covered the costs.
Please show documentation.
And once again, using your logic, if someone engaging in lawful and peaceful activity is a victim of a crime, they should bear the police costs. That's pure B.S. - we know you you feel about the Minutemen, and you're just making up nonsense, regardless of the fact that there are far bigger issues than the Minutemen at stake here. What is at stake is empowering goons to squelch opposing views.
Not "imagined," but very real--and it's been that way forever. I've pulled overtime to protect a local KKK rally when I was a cop, and the KKK covered the costs involved.
This is a small group meeting in an indoor space. Sorry, but you are putting the responsibility for criminal behavior on the victims here, and that is ludicrous. We as citizens pay taxes partially for government at all levels to not allow thugs to take over civilized life. To demand that a lawful group pay the costs of dealing with those who seek to suppress their lawful rights is absurd.
Heard on the news the other night that the yakima area of WA state is the U.S. headquarters for the Mexican drug trade.
Was this rally inside or outside?
Because the Minutemen are threatened unlawfully, the town will not allow them to meet. What kind of message does that send?
Be MORE violent next time and you'll REALLY be able to stifle your opposition. That is why the town needs to stand up to the thugs, and call in help from the State Police if needed to arrest the thugs.
Exactly. If they get away with it in this instance, the leftist thugs will expand this type of behavior to other areas and for other issues.
If you can point to the law Congress passed removing their right to speak and assemble, I'll eat my words. As it is, I think I'll head over to the baby shower of a coworker and eat some cake.
That;s assuming that they were billed for the REALLY unplanned overtime as opposed to paying for the initial installment of police overtime Toledo put in place. (In SD, if we had underestimated just how much trouble a particular group would cause, the additional response was free--but we then assumed that the next time out, that group would cost at least as much, and billed accordingly when they asked for another permit, assuming we didn't refuse it outright.)
I'm sorry, but I question that claim when there are articles such as this:
Ohio Grapples With Cost of Klan Rallies - Spate of Events Drains Police Budgets
The Associated Press/October 9, 1999
In June 1992, in a case involving a white supremacist group in Forsyth County, Ga., the Supreme Court said communities that impose permit fees for parades and rallies can't charge more for controversial groups just because they might need more police protection.
So basically, you're full of it.
Outside. If they'd held it in a municipal auditorium, we'd still have to have a significant police perimeter and officers inside to provide security.
See post #64. You're busted on this one.
This was well before 1999, and IMNHO, that was an idiotic ruling by the Supreme Court.
Well, we disagree on the route with illegals, but we certainly can agree that unless EVERYONE has a right to speak, we're all in danger.
The ruling was in 1992.
IMNHO, that was an idiotic ruling by the Supreme Court.
Your opinion on the ruling does not matter in relation to the false argument you are making here. Municipalities cannot charge controversial groups the extra security costs.
So try a different spin.
Thanks. I thought I smelled something being shoveled.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.