Minutemen Denied Permit To Assemble

Yakima Herald Republic ^

[traditional1]

Would they do the same if Cindy Sh@#hole or some black preacher wanted a permit? What about Bluto (Michael larda$$ Moore)?

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?

[dirtboy]

The general rule of thumb is that if your event is likely to impose large unplanned costs on the municipality in question, your organization gets to cover those costs. Always has been, always will be.

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.

[beltfed308]

The general rule of thumb is that if your event is likely to impose large unplanned costs on the municipality in question, your organization gets to cover those costs.

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.

[tgslTakoma]

"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.

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.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

Sorry, but that typically applies to large gatherings that require such logistics as porta-potties and cops for traffic control.

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.

[dirtboy]

And you would know the detailed bits and pieces of the Klan's budget because . . . ?

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.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

In this particular instance it was refused because of the imagined costs caused by the protesters who would not be paying anything outside.

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.

[dirtboy]

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.

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.

[ketchikan]

Heard on the news the other night that the yakima area of WA state is the U.S. headquarters for the Mexican drug trade.

[beltfed308]

Was this rally inside or outside?

[tgslTakoma]

Try thinking through this a bit.

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.

[dmz]

I think you also need to think this one through. They were denied a permit to assemble at a specific location. They were not denied the right to assemble and speak at a different location, say, one's private property.

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.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

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.

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.)

[dirtboy]

I've pulled overtime to protect a local KKK rally when I was a cop, and the KKK covered the costs involved.

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.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

Was this rally inside or outside?

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.

[dirtboy]

See post #64. You're busted on this one.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

This was well before 1999, and IMNHO, that was an idiotic ruling by the Supreme Court.

[Howlin]

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.

[dirtboy]

This was well before 1999,

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.

[beltfed308]

Thanks. I thought I smelled something being shoveled.