Good, because you weren’t paying attention, anyway. You merely decided to try and put words in my mouth, and it didn’t work. I said all the way, way, way back in the thread, responding to the “under what authority” question, that I wanted to know if it was a citizens’ arrest (and subsequently that that would make a difference regarding the scenario, along with whether the man violate a criminal law). Given the further information, the scenario would now be different if it was a citizens’ arrest. So, if your attention span is too fleeting to pay attention, I’m overwhelmed with joy at the prospect of you not addressing me anymore. I don’t owe anyone an apology, and I assure you none is forthcoming.
From my first post on the thread:
“Just logged in to say the same thing [re: by what authority]. I couldn’t tell from the article, but I was going to ask if anyone knew if the retired officer was performing a citizen[s]’ arrest (I thought it required 2 people), was part of private security (doesn’t sound like it), or someone who assaulted someone else because he didn’t like the fact that he spoke during the ceremony.”
“Good, because you weren’t paying attention, anyway...So, if your attention span is too fleeting to pay attention, I’m overwhelmed with joy at the prospect of you not addressing me anymore.”
I just love it when the insults and sarcasm starts. Some may think it’s a sign of superior intellect or cleverness, but more often than not it’s a great insight into those who engage in such tactics. So, I apologize in advance that your “joy” will be short lived.
I was going to just let this thread go by, but I’m curious. Why are you so wrapped around the axle by the legality of the direct action of a retired LEO / Marine who did everyone a favor by personally removing an obvious nuisance who wanted confrontation?
You have failed to address the INTENT of someone who’s sole purpose in attending was disruption. In any sort of following litigation, this would be a key factor. Why continue to ignore it?
You argued that it wasn’t clear that such boorish action was, in fact, illegal. When someone else here made the effort to do the research and confirm that it was, you wanted to “shift the discussion” away from this point you so vociferously championed. Wouldn’t it have been easier to do the research yourself first and not waste everyone’s time on speculation?
Your initial query ended with “...or someone who assaulted someone else because he didn’t like the fact that he spoke during the ceremony.” Again, you seem bound and determined to mis-characterize Mr. Weismann’s sole purpose of being there in the first place - he wanted to ruin the event for everyone else with his extreme disruption. This is hardly the same thing as submitting a comment for consideration in a public meeting. Can’t you see the difference?
This idiot CLEARLY needed direct and immediate intervention. I’m thankful that someone was there who had the cajones to do it. Better that than letting this clown hijack a lawful assembly. And I really don’t understand the purpose of questioning the act of someone who, by all reports, deserves our admiration and respect.
So why noodle this to death?