[Those_Crazy_Liberals]

"You could indeed...so what do you conclude from that? That we should either expect to be secure in our persons OR exercise our rights under the First Amendment, but not both? "

What I'm saying is there wasn't a person in that crowd that could be said was surprised that violence occured. Violence is never right - but for any claim on the part of anyone in that lawsuit - plaintiff or defendant - that they didn't expect violence is unreasonable.

[Physicist]

Violence is never right - but for any claim on the part of anyone in that lawsuit - plaintiff or defendant - that they didn't expect violence is unreasonable.

I certainly expected violence. Does that mean that I surrendered my legal right to be secure in my person? Or does it mean that my First Amendment right to free speech was null and void, so I should not have exercised it?

I don't know where you get the idea that if you expect a crime, you are not entitled to redress when it occurs.

[Physicist]

Let me add that Ed Rendell's actions had the consciously intended result of forcing me (and Don and Teri) to choose between our safety and our expression. We chose to preserve our expression. If I can't blame Ed Rendell for the choice I made, I can certainly blame him for forcing me into that choice. And I do. It was a crime.