I understand.I heard no threat of violence. I could have missed it, but I do not remember any threats are call to violence. On the other hand, abusive language is against the law here, even if it does not call people to violence, like their cussing and sexual remarks, as well as the prolific use of the “N” word.
I watched snippets of the longer version.I cannot quote the group on this forum.
This begs to be repeated!!! The ones doing the really ugly stuff don’t get much of a mention at all!!!It is unfortunate that with Phillips grand-standing, and the teenagers embroiled as central figures in this story that the real villains are flying under the radar.
Abusive language is considered disorderly conduct under PC 42.01. Normally, such people are dispelled, and only arrested if they refuse to leave to prevent them from breaching the peace.Perhaps the laws are different in your area.
A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
(1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;
(2) makes an offensive gesture or display in a public place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;
(3) creates, by chemical means, a noxious and unreasonable odor in a public place;
(4) abuses or threatens a person in a public place in an obviously offensive manner;
. . . . “Phillips’s DD-214 discharge papers show that he was a non-combat vet who served as an electrician.” . . .
. . . Shipley says the official record shows that Phillips enlisted in May 1972 as Nathaniel Richard Stanard in the Marine Reserves. His adopted name was Nathaniel Phillips. He served until 1976, having received electrical training and reaching the rank of private.
Phillips, Shipley said, faced AWOL (Absent Without Leave) charges at least three times while serving in California. . . .
. . . In response to this evidence, Twitchy.com reports in a Jan.22 article that " Indian Country Today is going all the way back to 2008 to correct an article in which Phillips described how he was spit on when he returned home from Vietnam."
Here’s a link to the op-edYesterday in his OpEd Bishop Stowe of Kentucky made it clear that it was the boys’ wearing of MAGA hats that caused the whole confrontation. He is quite concerned that any Catholic youth would express support for racism and for President Trump by wearing such hats.
Wow…the bishop unloads both barrels on the Covington Boys not for anything they may have done to Nathan Phillips, but for wearing MAGA hats. Reading the op-ed Bishop Stowe is coming very close to saying that Trump supporters are not welcome in his Church. I wonder what his reaction would be if the lads had been wearing Che’ shirts instead.Without engaging the discussion about the context of the viral video or placing the blame entirely on these adolescents, it astonishes me that any students participating in a pro-life activity on behalf of their school and their Catholic faith could be wearing apparel sporting the slogans of a president who denigrates the lives of immigrants, refugees and people from countries that he describes with indecent words and haphazardly endangers with life-threatening policies.
Not sure how any failure on the part of the chaperones justifies the treatment that the kids are getting.It’s “funny” how some people put “partisan political-correctness” ahead of believing that chaperons have a #1 duty to protect the children.
But you weren’t there. You’re just Monday morning quarterbacking a situation that you really know very little about.I’ve “been there”, and I well know what can sometimes all too easily happen, and the chaperons could have and should have, imo, taken actions that may have been able to both better protect the students and tone down the confrontation.
This times 10.But you weren’t there. You’re just Monday morning quarterbacking a situation that you really know very little about.
My apologies. It was not my intention to communicate that I knew more about the situation than you do, because, I don’t. I wasn’t there. Were you there on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial? That would certainly add validity to your thoughts on the matter. But if you weren’t, it’s just Monday morning quarterbacking a game you only saw the ESPN highlights of.for you to assume that I “really know very little about” this confrontation, thus implying that you know so much more than I, is so condescending and irresponsible that it doesn’t deserve any more comment from me.
Yes. The bishop’s statement seems needlessly hyperbolic. The students are condemned because…why? Because they were wearing a hat that he doesn’t like! Good grief. It’s just a hat or cap. It doesn’ t have Trump’s name on it. It doesn’t say “I support racism.” He’s reading a lot more into those souvenir caps than the kids could imagine. I guess the message is that it’s okay to be Catholic and be pro-life but you cannot support a president who supports your pro-life cause.Wow…the bishop unloads both barrels on the Covington Boys not for anything they may have done to Nathan Phillips, but for wearing MAGA hats. Reading the op-ed Bishop Stowe is coming very close to saying that Trump supporters are not welcome in his Church. I wonder what his reaction would be if the lads had been wearing Che’ shirts instead.