Charges Expected To Be Filed Against MOA Protest Organizers

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, Dec 22, 2014.

  1. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #1
    http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2014/...-file-charges-against-moa-protest-organizers/

    slippery slope, I do NOT in any way support this.
     
  2. Gym Hellwig macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2013
    #2
    I do support this. It's private property. You have no right to enter my home to protest. Sorry.
     
  3. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #3
    I think I do. Peaceful protests on public land is one thing. Shutting down a private business is another.
     
  4. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #4
    so how many businesses get to apply & sue when they are in the path of the protest? should the TEA party or OWS or any other protest group be limited to "free" speech areas
     
  5. Gutwrench macrumors 65816

    Gutwrench

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    #5
    How is it a slippery slope? I don't follow that.

    ----------

    I think this is totally on the mark.
     
  6. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #6
    I don't know. I do know that there is a difference between walking down a public street and possibly blocking people from getting into businesses and walking into the building of a business and not leaving when causing a disruption. You have the right to your private land. Businesses can't sue over a protest coming down the street just like they can't sue if people can't park because PSEG is ripping up the street and laying down new gas lines.
     
  7. Gym Hellwig macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2013
    #7
    If you negatively effect a place of business, that business has every right to pursue legal redress.
     
  8. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #8
    ok, makes sense,thanks.
     
  9. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #9
    They can protest on the sidewalks, though. Anything that's government property is free game.
     
  10. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #10
    Seems pretty bad to sue protest organisers for protesting in a shopping centre. I get that its private land, but still...
     
  11. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #11
    If they are protesting on private property, also known as trespassing, and impeding someone's ability to earn from property, yeah they should be forced to compensate the impacted parties.
     
  12. Rogifan macrumors P6

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #12
    Good. Throw their behinds in jail for a while.
     
  13. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #13
    Suing them gives them a pulpit, and jailing them makes them a martyr.
     
  14. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #14
    I wonder whether churches count as private property?
     
  15. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #15
    I look forward to hearing about your protest inside the Pentagon.
     
  16. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #16
    Why wouldn't they be? They typically get tax exempt status, not the same as being publicly owned.

    Anyone who is for protests on private property should have no problem with someone protesting inside their house, do you serve dinner too?

    Not only that but this particular movement seems to have no concept of what protesting is, if black lives matter they should really deviate from their loot and burn tactics which is likely to get another one of them killed.

    Also not sure why they choose MOA, they should be rioting in their own neighbourhoods where black on black crime is abhorrent.
     
  17. Gutwrench macrumors 65816

    Gutwrench

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    #17
    I spent Saturday afternoon across I494 at the Minneapolis - St Paul Airport. I wish the group would have migrated their protest there. I could have used the entertainment.
     
  18. pdjudd macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Plymouth, MN
    #18
    From the OP:

    It was a PR stunt and nothing more. I think they deserve to have charges placed on them. The mall is private property and unless they have permission to protest from the owners (they don’t), then they need to protest in an area where protesting doesn’t require permission or they need to protest in a area where they are permitted access. The MOA, is not one of those areas. At that point, they are not protesters, they are trespassers.

    Frankly, bringing the protests here is silly anyhow since MN has nothing to do with what they are protesting and the Mall has nothing to do with it either.
     
  19. sviato macrumors 68020

    sviato

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2010
    Location:
    HR 9038 A
    #19
    Completely agree.
     
  20. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #20
    In which case the U.S. is no better than Russia - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/P***y_Riot

    ----------

    Residential property (or even offices) are very different as they aren't usually open to the public.

    There were certainly protests over this stuff in Westfield Shopping Centre in London. I can't imagine anyone is going to be procesuted.

    ----------

    So you were AOK with Putin pressing charges on P***y riot?
     
  21. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #21
    From the ACLU ...


    This is an excellent example of a regulation/restriction of a cherished constitutional right.
     
  22. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #22
    So out of the hundreds of people each year killed by police each year unnecessarily in the US none of them have been in Minnesota?

    ----------

    If the U.S. wants to follow that rule for de facto public spaces like shopping centres that's fine. But it just makes you as unreasonable as Russia under Putin.
     
  23. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #23
    Every protest i've taken part in has been on public property. But for those interested in upping the ante—when the location permitted—protestors could simply step across the forest company's property line and be arrested on the spot.

    And some always chose to do it.
     
  24. TimelessOne macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2014
    #24
    Remember freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
    This is a case where they where ask to leave and refused. The reason they were ask was not over race, sex one of the protected classes. It was over protest.
     
  25. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #25
    Surely trespass is only a civil offence so you can't be arrested for it?
     

Share This Page