How did the the folks who failed to follow the terms of the 1st Amendment fare from Monday?
On Monday, police arrested 283 people accused of firing projectiles, pepper spray and tear gas to disperse a crowd demonstrating near the convention site, St. Paul Police Department Chief John Harrington said.
St. Paul police said that 120 of the 284 arrested were being held on felony charges. The rest were charged with various misdemeanors.
Don’t bend over to pick up the soap, maggots!
St. Paul police spokesman Thomas Walsh said Monday afternoon that some of those arrested are accused of property damage and conspiracy to riot.
Five police cars were among the property that was damaged, Walsh said.
Court proceedings Tuesday were slowed after 22 people facing misdemeanor charges refused to give their real names, Dave Gill, a Ramsey County public defender, told The Associated Press. Only two people out of all those arrested completed their initial hearings as of midday, the AP reported.
A few morons ruin the day are representative of the rest.
Teach said: How did the the folks who failed to follow the terms of the 1st Amendment fare from Monday?
Citizens are not obligated to “follow the terms of the 1st Amendment.†The Bill of Rights restricts our government by protecting individuals’ rights. Rioters may have broken the law but it has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.
I hope the deadly/stupid democrats and the lap dog media keep it up in the twin cities. Today my sister (76 years old) who has never voted anything but a streight democrat ticket woke up and will vote for McCain/Palin, her husband who votes a split ticket doesn’t care for McCain but the events of last night and today got McCain/Palin another sure vote. One at a time the democrats are throwing voters to McCain/Palin.
Silke, see the part at the end which “peaceably?” They were anything but. And no, they do not have to follow that, but, then, they can be arrested for “protesting” for acting in that violent manner.
I totally agree, Scrapiron. The make themselves look crazier and crazier doing this.
Teach said: Silke, see the part at the end which “peaceably?†They were anything but.
Yes, but that has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment tells Congress (not private citizens) they may not pass laws restricting the freedom of religion, the press, etc. The government was perfectly within its rights to arrest protesters for trespassing and damaging private property but that is not a Constitution issue – it’s a criminal one.
Right, they can’t pass laws against peaceable protesters, but, they sure can against violent wacko’s, and you are parsing the meaning.
I’m not parsing the meaning, I’m correcting your mistake. By definition private citizens cannot violate the terms of the 1st Amendment since it does not apply to them.