Police and protesters prepare for Black militia group planning Louisville demonstration

  • Thread starter Thread starter CradleRC58
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
NFAC off to a great start. “Accidental” gunfire sends 2 to the hospital and 1 treated at the scene.

This is where they gathered, and had not even started marching downtown yet.
 
Yes, thanks for keeping us up to date, so this was reported 10 hours ago? I just heard…


The same group that protested in Stone Mountain Georgia about 2-3 weeks ago.

By the way, the above so-called “Three Percenters”, I did not see them mentioned much in the story if they showed up… I looked them up if anyone is curious, a so-called “right-wing militia”.
 
Last edited:
I have seen enough footage of these guys to convince me that they are untrained buffoons.
 
I am not all that worried about planned protests, though if it had been me, I would have limited the counter protesters to a different street, or a different day. The right to assembly has always been limited by public safety. Likewise, the right speech is not the right to make others listen.
 
pnewton said:
I am not all that worried about planned protests, though if it had been me, I would have limited the counter protesters to a different street, or a different day.
Click to expand...
I think there are first amendment concerns about that. Many times jurisdictions run afoul when they limit speech to a certain place or time.
 
PaulinVA said:
Many times jurisdictions run afoul when they limit speech to a certain place or time.
Click to expand...
As long as there is no attempt to regulate content, controlling the time and place is legally permissible. In this case, if they allowed the first person to ask to close the street for a demonstration, and not the second, that would not be based on content. Even if you check out the ACLU you will see that these limitations are real and defendable.

That said, depending on the situation, sometimes competing groups can safely protest at the same time.
 
pnewton said:
That said, depending on the situation, sometimes competing groups can safely protest at the same time.
Click to expand...
Well, I would say that’s the point.. I want to use my free speech rights to directly counter the idiots who have already said they are protesting at a certain time and place. I am using the voice of the second group of protesters there.
 
PaulinVA said:
I want to use my free speech rights to directly counter the idiots who have already said they are protesting at a certain time and place.
Click to expand...
The First Amendment does not convey the freedom of speech to specific people. For example, I may want to talk to the President. I do not have the right to go within shouting distance of him at any time or place. The reason for this should be self-evident. Those who protest have the right to do so without being threatened or intimidated into silence. Or in the case of a protest that got out of hand, beaten into submission. Furthermore, the police have a legitimate duty to maintain the peace.

If you watched the movie “Selma,” you can see the need to keep two groups that are antagonistic toward each other at a distance where violence cannot be visited upon people for protesting.

I know this is a matter of case law and there is more than one legal opinion. I would argue that the use of guns in the protests could weigh into the decision of what a safe distance is.

On the other hand, if it were I, and the court ruled that I had to allow them close, I would not put officers at a risk ordered by a judge at the insistence of both combatants. I would take complaints and prosecute after the fact only. I say this for the same reason fire fighters do not enter a collapsing building to rescue people that want the building to collapse on them.

I found this:

 
Last edited:
You can tell because they have no multicam. Everyone knows operators have multicam.
 
No one at bundy’s deal shot their own in a negligent discharge though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top