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.
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.
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.
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.
Well the good citizen was not the Congress. Just a good decent citizen showing an assclown that there is a place and time for everything and that he had picked the wrong place and wrong time.
Not necessarily, but Distrubance of a Public Meeting certainly is. The event was a swearing-in ceremony, not a county council meeting.
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.
Distrubance of a Public Meeting"Disturbance of a public meeting refers to the unlawful interference with the proceedings of a public assembly. Generally, any conduct that is contrary to the usages of a particular sort of meeting and class of persons assembled interferes with its due progress and services, or anything that is annoying to the congregation, is a disturbance. A meeting shall be disturbed when it is agitated, aroused from a state of repose, interrupted, or diverted from the object of the assembly"
http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/disturbance-of-a-public-meeting%20/
Cordially,
You are advocating “the heckler’s veto,” which effectively DENIES the free speech of those who were trying to speak before the heckler took over.
“The heckler’s veto” has never been held to be a 1st Amd right.
His freedom of speech ended at that time when he was trampling the freedoms of the others present.