Posted on 11/14/2011 3:44:15 AM PST by lowbridge
Meet New York’s newest hero.
Kevin Hiltunen, a former NYPD officer, yesterday grabbed an Occupy Wall Street demonstrator by the collar and dragged him out of a Queens school where he’d been heckling US Rep. Bob Turner at the congressman’s swearing-in ceremony.
“I guess you could say I sorted him out,” said Hiltunen, 48, his jacket and tie barely mussed after dragging the scruffy protester out on his rear end.
“All I was doing was trying to stop this historic occasion from being disrupt-ed. There is a time and place to exercise your First Amendment rights,’’ said Hiltunen, of Bergen Beach, Brooklyn, who was identified by people at the ceremony as an ex-Marine.
“This was not the time or the venue,” Hiltunen added.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Except that girlie men, like this one seems to be, that hide behind their government connections are leftists.
His name resembles Hitman. +1 Like.
Sorry, we’ll have to disagree. I don’t believe you have the right to assault someone because they disagree with you.
Here’s the first amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
I realize that some people don’t think we should have one, but we do. It include a right to assemble, a right to speak, and a right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. While there are a lot of OWS goings on that are criminal, I want to know if speaking at a public meeting is one (a criminal act). Whether it is or not, we still have assault. And it’s still wrong. Defending YOUR person or property is one thing, physically attacking someone because you don’t like what they’re doing is another. This obviously isn’t the first case, sorry if you think assault is the appropriate way to get what they want. I don’t like leftists.
Answers can be found by reading the full article. The guy taking out the trash is a volunteer for the congressman’s campaign.
At this particular moment it appears he was acting as security.
If one goes into an event planning to start screaming and disrupting it, one should always be prepared for the invitation to leave.
I’m sure the whiner will consider legal action, as the article says he complained of a sore ankle. Poor dear.
The ‘might’ of the founders gave us this Republic. It will onlt be by the actions of those that love it that we keep it.
Roll over if you wish to.
I agree with you about the law.
Part of being a mature, responsible adult though, is knowing when and how to break it-an observation I am sure the Founders would endorse-and probably did as British subjects.
IMHO..the Marine acted responsibly.
Exactly..
This is the way you deal with commie scum, you dont wait around and listen to their drivel, just start kickin ass and takin names!! Should have been done from day 1 with this Occupy bullsh*t!!
When can we start dragging out the lawyers?
I believe, as I am sure many others do, that YOUR rights end where MY rights begin. People try to twist the bill of rights to suit their needs.
What about the people who wanted to listen to the swearing in ceremony? I am absolutely certain they were the majority there. So the bill of rights gives ONE individual the right to interfere with the rights of everyone else? Not hardly.
No matter how the bill of rights is interpreted others rights end where mine begin. I have the right to assemble peacefully - so if some butt head wants to make it non-peaceful then it is my right - no, my DUTY to enforce my own rights. If I want to listen to a speech and some butt head wants to make it so I can’t hear, then it is my DUTY to enforce my rights to listen.
Just like it is my right to protect my castle, it is my right and duty to protect myself from the unruly, the selfish, and those who believe their rights trump mine.
“Except that girlie men, like this one seems to be, that hide behind their government connections are leftists.”
While I wouldn’t go so far as to call him a “girlie man,” this certainly is a leftist practice. I find it sad that the Soros funded OWS people (Republican or not) have overshadowed the millions of people who have a legitimate concerns over what Republicans are calling “crony capitalism.” The fact is that Government is making shady deals behind our backs. And the Liberal elitists have succeeded in getting everyone who is upset at that to be labelled as “fringe” and as OWS “trash.” So the elitists have succeeded in getting the “right” to oppose anyone (in this case violently) who calls out the shady banker/government deals as OWS trash, while simultaneously getting the “leftists” to hate and have contempt (and in some cases, be violent) against the “right” who have the same concerns over “crony capitalism.” It’s the exact same thing, but the two groups will fight each other, because everyone has to be on a “team.”
Useful idiots are being played against each other, when in fact the problem IS socialism. But that’s to intense a topic for this simple back-patting thread.
I guess that there’s a reason “divide and conquer” is still around...it works so well.
Americans are not going to turn over their political activities and constitution to lefty OWS pigs like they have at Universities. They are not submitting the political system to these flaming useful idiot bullies either. (Twinkling my fingers.)
The Obama/Soros/Muslim “revolution” will not be a peaceful coup.
The radicals are going to use puppets to get violent and that is what Obama and the globalists want. This is their baby for toltaltarian “change.”
What an ignorant comment. The Founder fought so that they had the right to speak out, because they DIDN’T. If the man violated a law, then he needs to be convicted by a jury of his peers. It’s that simple.
“Part of being a mature, responsible adult though, is knowing when and how to break it-an observation I am sure the Founders would endorse-and probably did as British subjects.”
Agreed. Washington said that our constitutional form of Government could be useful for a moral people (to paraphrase). I have no problem with a citizens’ arrest, if the man is subsequently found guilty of breaking some law, in a court of law. If he’s found innocent, he should sue the socks off of the man who assaulted him (having thus been vindicated himself). The I believe the boundary you are referring to would be that citizens’ arrest. We are to police ourselves, which is why we still have citizens’ arrests. That’s why I asked if it was a citizens’ arrest (not mentioned in the article), that authority granted makes all the difference in the world (IMHO).
If you were part of security, how would YOU have handled the situation? If there were no security personnel present, how then would YOU have handled the disrupter?
Bogus argument. "This case" was not violent. The disruptor was physically removed from the venue, but he was not beaten up, stabbed, shot, bloodied, nicked, kicked or bruised. Though his sweatshirt was probably wrinkled.
I do find it interesting that you say that "in some cases" the left is violent, while you declare that this instance of the leftist being removed from the ceremony he tried to disrupt was an act of violence from the right.
I'm not buying what you are selling.
The problem with your argument, is that you didn’t present anything that said the protester wasn’t peaceful.
“Just like it is my right to protect my castle, it is my right and duty to protect myself from the unruly, the selfish, and those who believe their rights trump mine.”
Agreed. Now was this a private event on private property (”your” figurative “castle”), or a public event on public property (not “your castle). The swearing in of a public official at a school suggests the latter. The problem is that if people start condoning this, the LEFT (not you) will use it. Don’t think for an instant that if you say that speaking out of turn at a public event is grounds for assault, that the liberals won’t run with that. Obama is forming his civilian army, don’t forget it. When we let the rule of law break down, it ALWAYS turns out bad for everyone.
Talk about a bogus argument. The article specifally says that rather than ask the man to stop speaking, or to leave, that as soon as the protester spoke, he grabbed him and dragged him out.
I’m not buying what you’re selling, either. Our country is founded upon the rule of law, not the discretion of violent individuals.
The word “security” doesn’t appear in the article. Let me know where it’s reported (link please), stating that this man was “security,” where the event was private, conducted on private property, and I’ll be glad to answer. Otherwise, it’s irrelevant to ask how I would respond to a situation that didn’t exist.
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.