Comments by "rockethead7" (@rockethead7) on "Fox News"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
No. You are confusing the concept of public property like a sidewalk, with publicly owned facilities. And, I can make this point very easily by some analogies. Go try to enter Area 51 under the notion that it's a publicly owned facility, therefore you're allowed to be there. Go try to walk into the mayor's office, and refuse to leave when asked, because you think it's a public facility and you're allowed to be there. Count how many seconds it takes before you're locked in the city jail. Go try to walk into the White House, and tell them that you're a taxpayer, and therefore you have a right to be inside that building. See how that goes for you. Go try to walk into a judge's private chambers at a local courthouse. Tell the judge that you're a taxpayer, and you have every right to be in that facility because it's owned by the public. See how that works out.
(Note: I'm not actually suggesting you do those things. I'm just making a point in a graphic way.)
What the school board did was wrong. But, they DO have the authority to trespass someone. I hope the guy who was arrested gets a ton of money in a lawsuit. And, I hope that every board member is kicked out of office. But, like it or not, they had the authority to trespass the man.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Did your brains fall out of your head? WHAT? This isn't an issue of the US Constitution. The issue is that the proper authorities of the facility asked the guy to leave, and he refused to leave. Therefore, he was trespassing. The cops didn't arrest the guy for speaking. The cops arrested the guy for trespassing.
Now, of course, I hope the guy who was arrested sues the school/board, as well as every other parent of a child in that school should sue the school/board, and I hope they get a lot of money for their ridiculous actions. But, none of that is the issue when it comes to trespassing. The cops MUST trespass a person if the proper authorities of that building ask the person to leave, but the person won't leave.
What EXACTLY would you do if it was your home or something? If someone won't leave your home, and you call the cops to have the person removed, and the cops said, "well, we agree with what this guy is saying, so we're not going to remove him from your home." (?) I realize a school is not a home. But, when it comes to trespassing, it really makes no difference. The school board has the authority to trespass someone, and the cops must do it. The rest is up to the courts. And, like I said, I hope the guy who was arrested gets a huge amount of money out of the school/board. But, the cops themselves don't get to make that decision.
People like you are quite disgusting, you know. You encourage violence against police who are doing their jobs EXACTLY CORRECTLY.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nevsart5884
YOU SAID: "so how can the board hold a public meeting until 7.00pm then out of the blue declare the area private"
== They shouldn't do that. But, that's not the cops' choice, that was the board's choice.
YOU SAID: "an area that is PUBLIC property and the board and the police are there to serve the PUBLIC but instead arrest the PUBLIC for…………… attending a meeting"
== Wrong. He was arrested for trespassing. If the board ends the meeting early, and asks the cops to trespass someone, then the cops have to ask the person to leave. It the person doesn't leave, the cops must arrest the person.
YOU SAID: "invited by the board"
== Hence why I think the entire board must be booted from their positions, and I hope this school/board gets sued, and I hope the parents in that town get a nice 8-figure settlement (divided amongst them, of course).
YOU SAID: "or was it free speech they were arrested for?"
== What don't you understand here? He was arrested for trespassing.
YOU SAID: "A blind person can see there’s something very wrong here……….. If you can’t see it, I would question your sanity!"
== Good grief. YES!!!!!! YES!!!!!!! YES, dummy. There's a lot very wrong there. But, none of what was wrong was done by the cops. The cops are not judge and jury. They are to make one decision, and one decision only... is there enough cause for arrest? That's it. That's the only thing they can decide. If the elected board trespasses an individual, and the person won't leave, then the cops MUST arrest. That's their job. From there, it's handed over to the court system. And, I hope the parents sue the board/school, and that all of those people on this board are booted, and that they get so shamed that they must leave town, and never serve on another board again. And, the school/board should pay huge financial penalties for what they did. But, you're sitting there expecting cops to decide guilt/innocence. No. That's not how the legal system works. Cops do NOT decide guilt or innocence. Cops decide whether there's enough evidence for arrest, or not. And, yes, when the board asks someone to leave, and the man won't do it, and the board asks the cops to trespass the guy, yes, the cops must arrest. I'm sorry you don't understand how the law works, but you shouldn't use your ignorance as a method to promote your hatred of police. I mean, good grief, you don't even know what the charges were (despite that it was explained in the video).
1
-
1
-
To answer you directly, the board ended the meeting, and asked everyone to leave. When they refused, it became an unlawful assembly, and the board trespassed anybody who refused to leave. As for removing the board members from their positions, yup, I hope they get sued into oblivion, get kicked out of their board positions, and never serve on another board for as long as they live. But, like it or not, they do have the power to end a meeting, and to trespass people who refuse to leave.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HeartlandFamilyDesigns
YOU SAID: " your assumptions are completely incorrect. I love the police."
== Yet, apparently not THESE police.
YOU SAID: "I think based solely on the tape and not being there in person, that the sheriff was incorrect in what he did."
== Wrong. The board trespassed the man. The police must ask the man to leave, and if he doesn't, they must uphold that trespass.
YOU SAID: "The gentleman said that they were allowed to be there until 7pm. He then said that he was arrested at 5:45."
== Fine. But, the board asked him to leave. If I throw a party at my house, and I say it'll last until 11pm, and I change my mind and end it early, you must leave my house, else you are trespassing.
YOU SAID: "They were suddenly trespassing on public grounds?"
== Irrelevant. You are confusing a public sidewalk with a building that happens to be owned by the public. Yes, trespassing applies to public buildings also. Officials in a publicly owned building can trespass people. It happens all the time.
YOU SAID: "It looks like the school board didn't like what they were being told and decided to close early and run away."
== YES!!!! YES!!!!! The pathetic cowardly board members, who should be booted out of office, CLOSED EARLY!!!! Hence, anybody who refuses to leave, is trespassing.
YOU SAID: "Personally if I were there gentleman I probably would've taken it outside if there school board left."
== There school board? There? What? Did you mean "their" school board? What?
YOU SAID: "I don't know the rules in the area"
== Obviously.
YOU SAID: "BUT there is a right to free speech."
== The man wasn't arrested for speech, he was arrested for TRESPASSING!!!! Good grief. Look, you obviously don't understand some very basic concepts here, so let me give you an analogy. If the man, hypothetically, was buck naked when he was speaking, and the cops arrest him, are you going to say he was arrested for speech? Or, are you going to say he was arrested for public nudity? Do you understand? My point is, speech has nothing to do with why he was arrested. He was arrested for TRESPASSING.
YOU SAID: "Is that the gentleman getting tackled? I don't see where that's called for (I'm guessing not all of the tape was shown). Crap like this shouldn't be settled like this. Humans needs to start acting like grown ups and not 3 year olds."
== Yes, and the man should have left when asked, and sued the school board, along with every other parent in that school who should join him in the lawsuit against the ridiculous school board. THAT is how to handle these things. Good grief.
1
-
1
-
@HeartlandFamilyDesigns
They didn't have a right to be there. The officials asked them to leave. Spare me your mocking tone. You don't know what you're talking about, and your ignorance bleeds through every word you write.
See, this is the thing about YouTube comments... people like you feel as though your ability to write a message... somehow makes you correct. Like, your ability to write it down, makes you an authority. You can sit there all day long and say the cops were "doing it wrong." But, notice anything?? Nobody, and I mean NOBODY in the media is even claiming that the arrest was wrongful. They don't say it in this media clip. They don't say it in other media clips. Nobody.
And, you got your facts wrong in the first posting. You thought they were arrested for something constitutional, remember? You didn't even realize they were arrested for trespassing (not a constitutional issue).
But, whatever, like most YouTube commenters, you're simply incapable of ever being wrong. Every opinion you ever express is correct.
1
-
@HeartlandFamilyDesigns
YOU SAID: "the guy said he had a right to be there exercising his right to free speech, that is what I'm basing my opinion on. That's it."
== Well, congratulations for admitting that you are so one-dimensional, so focused on ONE thing, that you fail to understand why he was trespassing. Dummy, he wasn't arrested for free speech!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How many times have you been told this??? What IS wrong with you? Did you not understand the public nudity analogy?? I don't think you did. If the man was naked in public, you'd be one of those idiots saying he was arrested for free speech, instead of realizing that he was arrested for public nudity.
YOU SAID: "I actually said more than once that my opinion is based on what I saw."
== And, you're wrong. You saw wrong. You interpreted wrong. He was arrested for trespassing, not for speech.
YOU SAID: "I never said that I was the end all be all in authority of the situation."
== Obviously.
YOU SAID: "I also said that I assumed this was the entire story."
== Did you fail to hear the part of the story where they clearly said he was being arrested for TRESPASSING??!? Not speech!!!!?!?!?
YOU SAID: "What is getting you so upset?"
== Because you're a brick wall. Nobody likes a brick wall.
YOU SAID: "An opinion can't be wrong, it's an opinion."
== An opinion can't be wrong?? With that, I will not bother with you again. This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read in my life. If your opinion was that 2+2=97, your opinion can't be wrong? What??
YOU SAID: "You on the other hand seen very triggered by something."
== Just illiterate brick walls who don't understand anything whatsoever.
YOU SAID: "It still makes me smile when I see that you are so all knowing that you know when someone else's opinion (you might need to Google that word) is wrong. That's not how life works."
== Oh, yes, I really need a lesson in how life works from a barely literate internet clod who thinks opinions can't be wrong, who doesn't understand what trespassing means, and who is only capable of focusing on one aspect of a story, ignoring all of the details. Yes, please teach me how life works.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh, you're a real genius.
YOU SAID: "So this shows that the police will do what they are ordered to do when the dictators say jump."
== Nonsense. The cops were enforcing the law correctly. If someone won't leave when asked, they are trespassing. That's how the law works, and rightfully so. Would YOU want to call the police for someone who refuses to leave your house, have the cops come and evaluate whether or not you should have asked that person to leave, and maybe say to you, "nope, we're not going to take the person away, because we don't agree with your politics, so you're stuck, deal with it by yourself"? No? You wouldn't appreciate it? You'd say something like, "hey, cops are not here to voice opinions on politics, cops are here to enforce trespass laws, now get this guy off of my property." Oh, but if you agree with the politics, oh, ok, now the cops are the problem, huh? Good grief. Get this through your head: whether you agree with the board members and administrators or not, if someone refuses to leave when asked, that person IS TRESPASSING. The cops are not the judge and jury. The cops make the arrest, and leave the rest to the courts. That's how our system works. Don't like it? Go move to some 3rd world country where cops express their opinions with a machete.
YOU SAID: "How do we back the blue"
== Maybe by first understanding the laws? How about starting there?
YOU SAID: "when their not on our side??????"
== Oh, I see the problem here. You're illiterate, therefore you don't understand the laws anyway. "Their not on our side"?? Was that your crippled attempt at saying "they're"? Or, did you think "not" was a noun? What? You know, maybe if you knew how to read and write in the first place, you might have understood the laws by now also, huh?
Dummy, the SCHOOL BOARD is the problem. The man was guilty of trespassing, whether it's a public facility or not. That's just reality. The correct course of action is for the man to sue the board/school for the garbage they pulled, and lobby to get the entire school board kicked out of office for failing to act in the best interest of the students. And, I hope he does that. And, I hope the rest of the parents do the same. But, don't blame the cops for properly executing their duties. Good grief. Such total ignorance.
1
-
So? Do you think a building owned by the public is the same as a sidewalk or something? OK, you go right ahead, and try to march onto an aircraft carrier or something, and say, "this is owned by we the people, let me onboard!!" Try it. See how that goes for you. Try to enter the White House too. Tell them that the building is owned by "we the people" and you have the right to be there. Good luck. Try going into a courthouse, and entering a judge's private chambers. Tell the judge that "we the people" own his office. Count how many seconds go by before you're in handcuffs. Try that at your local mayor's office too. And, this incident was at a school, right? Do you think you have the right to just go into a school whenever you want? Try it while school is in session, for example.
Sorry, you don't understand the difference between public property (like a sidewalk), vs. a building that happens to be owned by the public.
1
-
1
-
WRONG. Absolutely wrong. Cops are not to take sides. They are there to decide if a trespass occurred, and if so, to arrest. Do you REALLY want cops to make a choice between one side or another? You don't think that's what courts are for? You want individual cops deciding? How will that go, if it's your house, and someone refuses to leave? Do you want the cops to say, "sorry, we don't agree with your politics, so we're going to let the person stay in your house, and we refuse to trespass the guy"? That's how this goes? Or, are you going to try to say that because this was a school, not a home, the cops shouldn't arrest anybody? (You'd be wrong.)
1
-
1
-
@boofert.washington2499
YOU SAID: "Nobody was physically hurt. It's really not that big of a deal."
== Tell that to the students who DIDN'T get the college positions they wanted because the rich people bought their spots away from them.
YOU SAID: "College is overrated to begin with. I should know. I barely went to class and still graduated with a 3.7 GPA."
== Well, then you're not the one that's affected in the first place. But, others were. The ones most affected were the ones who didn't get in because they were borderline to begin with. Those are the types of people who really need the extra education, and it has been statistically proven that those types of people almost always benefit from getting the education that you didn't care about. This stuff isn't a victimless crime, you know. One of the main points of our country's university system is that it's supposed to be the great equalizer in our society. It's what helps to make the USA the "land of opportunity." As it is, it's already very true that children of rich parents have quite a head start in life, and will have a lot more privilege than children of poor parents, and I don't think there's anything we can realistically do about that, nor am I very sure that I'd want to do anything about that (people should be entitled to work hard to help their children in life, and why shouldn't that be the case?). But, a university education is supposed to help equalize the playing field a bit. Admission is supposed to be based on academic qualifications, not on the parents' financial status. What those parents did was pay money, not even to the university itself, but to crooked individuals, to cheat someone else out of their rightful admission to that university.
Furthermore, get real here, do you REALLY want to live in a system that bribing people to get what you want is legal, and the only criteria to define what's a crime, and what's not a crime, is whether someone was physically harmed? If I pulled some sort of financial crime, which devalued your 401K portfolio by $100,000, would you take the same stance as you're taking right now? Is it "no big deal" that I essentially stole $100,000 from you, merely because you weren't physically hurt in the process? Well, what these parents did was just about the equivalent of that. Someone else was unable to attend that university, and either couldn't go at all, or had to go to a lesser university instead. This very well may mean that, over the period of his/her lifetime, he/she will earn $100,000 less than if he/she went to the more prestigious university. What these parents did was NOT a victimless crime, and they should pay a price for it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Violet_Lotus_
YOU SAID: "it was in a public building at a public hearing. Explain how that constitutes trespassing."
== You are confusing the concept of things like a public sidewalk, vs. public buildings. I mean, it helps if you stop and think for a minute about this concept. Like, if your idea is that it's owned by the public, you're allowed to be there, immediately you must know that this concept is wrong. You cannot just enter the White House. You cannot be in the judge's private chambers in a courthouse. You cannot go inside the mayor's office. You cannot even go inside the school while kids are in class. I mean, even for some public parks, you're not allowed to go at night. Anyway, back to your question about how it's trespassing: well, the way public buildings work, officials of that building have the authority to decide whether you're welcome there, or not. If the officials close the meeting early (which they did), and ask everyone to leave (which they did), then anybody who refuses to leave is trespassing. You may not like it, I may not like it, but, yes, that's 100% correct. The board has the purview to trespass people who refuse to leave when asked.
YOU SAID: "They were clearly trying to shut him up."
== Yup, and I hope that every member of that school board is booted off of the board, and sued to oblivion, and never holds any kind of public board/office again. Those people shouldn't be inflicting their "woke" politics upon the educational system. They're there to educate children, not to foster their silly racial viewpoints upon the world. I'd love to see the man who was arrested win $200,000, and every other parent of a child in that school system win $40,000. And, I'd love for this case to go to trial and become the next generation version analogous to the Dover trial on intelligent design (which destroyed the ridiculous intelligent design movement, and left it in the dust where it belongs, all because a stupid school board overstepped its bounds). I'd like to see this incident turn into the same thing for their racial theories, and that this board becomes the poster child that destroys their ridiculous viewpoint permanently, just like the Dover trial did to the school board's position, rendering it basically impossible for any school board anywhere in the country to ever pull that garbage again.
That being said, like it or not, the school board CAN close a meeting, and CAN trespass people. If you are asked to leave, and refuse, you ARE trespassing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@deborahroy3528
YOU SAID: "No they can not"
== Yes, they can. And, after that, it's up to the courts to decide. Not the police. The police just arrest for the trespass, and from there, all decisions are made by the courts.
YOU SAID: "they can try and make you believe it"
== Pfttt. Who's "they"? The law is the law.
YOU SAID: "you see a high official tried that here and he was put in his place very quickly"
== What ARE you talking about? As for the matter of trespassing, the board was held up. The police trespassed the guy. The board was out of control and ridiculous in all other matters. But, regarding trespassing, the board's decision was to trespass the guy, and that's what happened.
YOU SAID: "and that was none other than our capital building,"
== Pffttt. "Capital building"? Is that anything like "lower case building"? Or maybe "capital punishment building"? What? Was that your illiterate and crippled attempt to say "capitol building"? If you can't even spell it, what can you possibly know about it?
YOU SAID: "and it cost him his next election because of what he tried."
== You know you've already lost any position you ever had (which was already pretty much nil) if you have to drift off topic this badly.
YOU SAID: "This was an example of people doing unlawful acts against the people, flexing authority they did not have as long as the meeting was public in a public building the people had every right to be there till the meeting was adjourn."
== They DID adjourn it, dummy.
Good grief.
1
-
@deborahroy3528
YOU SAID: " you are one of those who like to make others feel stupid"
== Wrong. You are making yourself look stupid.
YOU SAID: "you pick at a typo"
== Spare me. You didn't know how to spell it. You know it. I know it. Don't pretend otherwise.
YOU SAID: "which shows your ignorance."
== How does YOUR misspelling show MY ignorance?
YOU SAID: "As for the court issue I hope that guy get him self a dam good lawyer"
== So, what's this sentence? A whole bunch more "typos"? Or, are you just demonstrating that you're completely illiterate, exactly as I said earlier?
YOU SAID: "that specialized in Constitutional Law and takes the school board and those officers to school for their actions."
== YES!!!!!!!! YES!!!!!! YES, you ignoramus, YES!!!! You are finally getting it!!!! The **BOARD** was the problem. The police were not. The police were not there about any civil rights. The police were not there to uphold any right to protest, any right to speak, etc. The police were there because the board called them to help clear out people who refused to leave. They had the right to do that. They can call meetings, they can end meetings, they can ask people to leave, etc. But, what they can't do is make decisions without hearing from the constituency, nor should they have done any of the ridiculous things about this silly (and very broken) "woke" attitude they're taking. And, for that, I hope the board gets sued to hell and back, and that every member of that board gets booted from office, and never serves again... ANYWHERE. The school board is downright ridiculous for the things they're doing. But, the board wasn't the topic here, dummy. You asked about what the POLICE were supposed to do. And, if the board calls the police to help get rid of trespassers, then that's what the police do. That's how their jobs work. That's what they're supposed to do. The police don't get involved with the politics. They don't get involved with whether or not the board should have ended the meeting. They don't get involved with whether or not free speech is violated. Those things are for the courts. Nobody gets "arrested" for violations of free speech. They get sued for that, not arrested. I'm sorry that you are just as crippled in your understanding of the law, as you're crippled in your understanding of English. But, you asked the question, and I answered you. If you didn't want an answer to your question, then you shouldn't have asked.
YOU SAID: "You want to attack and act all high and mighty wait it will come back to you."
== Really? How does that work? Any time you're pathetically wrong about something, and someone else calls you out for it, that person is "gonna get it"?? Really? Why is it that sooooo many people (you being one of them) can't just admit when you're wrong? Why not? What's so difficult about it? You posted the original question (clearly because you didn't know the answer). Then, when you get the answer, the person who answers you is the wrong one? Look, dummy, next time you want to say something, SAY IT. Don't disguise your ridiculous opinions as questions. Don't ask questions if you don't want answers.
YOU SAID: "Every time you call someone stupid hope you get 7 times back what you do."
== Well, that was almost a sentence. Congratulations.
YOU SAID: "You get on here to fight with people because of you inferiority complex."
== Dummy, you don't know what you're talking about. And, even pretending that you're correct, and I'm getting on here to fight with you out of an inferiority complex, it doesn't mean that I'm wrong. Either way, you still don't know what you're talking about. You're still barely literate. You still don't understand basic civics. You still can't muster up the courage to actually address anything I wrote, or any questions I asked. You still thought that the meeting wasn't adjourned, when it actually was (meaning, your facts are all wrong). I mean, good grief. Don't sit here and accuse ME of an inferiority complex, while you're demonstrating YOUR OWN INFERIORITY with every word you type.
YOU SAID: "So you do all you can to make others feel as you do."
== Dummy, YOU ASKED THE QUESTION IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! I didn't come to your home, knock down your door, and demand that you listen to me berate you. You asked a question, I answered, and then you jumped into the deep end of the ignorance pool, and spewed the most ridiculously wrong notions you could ever think up. Good grief. Again, next time you don't want answers to your questions, DON'T ASK QUESTIONS!!!
1
-
1
-
@deborahroy3528
YOU SAID: "oh I read what you said"
== Then why can't you address anything? Why are you going off on these weird tangents? I don't even understand the relevance? (And, neither do you.)
YOU SAID: "but you play ignorance over every school board"
== Bad Friday night, Deborah? A little tipsy perhaps? What does this even mean? Did you want to try this again when you're sober? What does it mean that I "play ignorance over every school board"? That sentence literally doesn't mean anything.
YOU SAID: "there are elected officials and people with any sense would call in so many complaints they would have to look into these matters."
== Deborah, oh Deborah? Can you make your 8 brain cells operate together for once, and listen to me?? The topic here was about your comment about what the POLICE are supposed to do.
YOU SAID: "They should also let the elected they will loose many votes"
== They'll "loose" votes? So, should they tighten the votes instead? Deborah, seriously now, just stop. Just put an end to this pile of illiterate gibberish. Every sentence you write is riddled with so many grammar and spelling errors that it's just plain embarrassing. You have the literacy level of a 6 year old. Just stop. Go back to school. Take some classes on reading and writing. Seriously, you're doomed to misunderstand literally every concept you come across, when you read and write this poorly. You're a mess. You're an absolute mess.
YOU SAID: "and support and would campaign very loudly against them getting elected again."
== And, this relates to your original comment, how? How does any of this tie back to police upholding the constitution? What in the world are you talking about now?
YOU SAID: "So your little smug comment shows what and who you are."
== Good grief. Ignorance and arrogance are a wicked mix. I suggest you shed at least one of those two. I mean, it's best if you shed them both. But, seriously, drop at least one of them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, let's see....
She wrote off the bribe money as a charitable donation (tax deduction), thus defrauding the government.
Making this more egregious, her tax deduction was for "helping underprivileged kids get into universities" (while her over-privileged children were the actual beneficiaries, and in actuality, her donation PREVENTED two underprivileged girls from getting admission).
She caused two other girls not to gain admission to the university so that her two girls could get in under false pretenses.
She never intended for her girls to row crew, thus cheating the university out of what they wanted (two female crew rowers for their team).
She bribed program officials and committed mail fraud and money laundry.
She refused to admit any fault for over a year, despite that the had her stone cold on tape. Thus, she clogged up the legal system, once again, by using her wealth and power to cause more trouble.
Should we go on?
And, you should be careful about using an analogy to lying on a resume. Yes, some lies on resumes are not illegal. They'll get you fired from a job, or kicked out of a university, if it's ever found out. But, yes, not illegal. On the other hand, some types of lies on resumes ARE illegal, and can result in jail time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kirkdennis830
No. I'm not going to engage any further if you couldn't even bring yourself to read the first reply. Instead, you read one line, and ignored the rest, and dipped yourself into your delusional little world of thinking you know what you're talking about, while being absolutely disconnected from reality. All of those people PLEAD GUILTY. Money laundering, racketeering, fraud, etc. They all plead guilty. But, you don't want to hear it. You just want to hear that you're "correct" - so you ignore everything but the one line that you think aligns with your delusions, and throw the rest in the trash. Everyone is stupid except for you, including the highest paid legal experts on the planet. So, yeah, go live on whatever planet you live on. I couldn't care less.
1
-
@kirkdennis830
You are proving me correct, and I will not bother with another reply after this. I wasn't even going to make this reply. If aaaaalllllllll of those people pleading guilty (people who have the best attorneys money can buy) doesn't prove to you that they're guilty, then there's really no hope for your sanity. You are claiming, while you don't even know what the crimes were, to know better than those people's own legal teams. And, why do you think you know better than they do? Because you are a delusional fool who lives outside of reality. If you cannot understand why it's a crime to commit money laundering, racketeering, fraud, bribery, tax evasion, etc., and why it's a BAD THING to cause two girls to get rejected to the university in favor of two girls who were not qualified, then there's really no hope for you. Your mind is completely lost, probably forever. You even alluded to this idea of "sport" and stuff, about how you thought they were actually going to compete, demonstrating how little you even know about the situation. They never competed. They never were going to compete. It was never part of the plan to compete. They faked "injuries" after they were admitted. And, the school cannot kick them out for getting injured. So, those girls didn't spend a single minute competing in the sport you're arguing about. Meanwhile, two girls who WERE qualified to compete on the team, didn't get admitted to the university, because those spots were taken up by these people who falsified their credentials, and bribing the coach to help them do it. You said you'd do the same as they did, huh? Well, then you're just as much of a piece of trash.
I'm done. I won't go any further with a piece of trash like you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Good grief. The cops weren't there for first amendment rights, dummy. They were there for TRESPASSING. Sheeeeesssssssshhhhhh.
You're darned correct if you think the school board was way out of line. They certainly were. Their policies are ridiculous. And, I hope they get sued, big time. I hope the man who got arrested gets at least $200,000. I hope every other parent of a child in that school gets at least $40,000. The actions of this board are reprehensible. But, the cops were not there for that. The cops were there FOR TRESPASSING!!!! The cops are not judge and jury about civil rights. The cops determine if a trespass has occurred (which it did), and then arrest the offender FOR TRESPASSING!!! Why can't you understand this? The cops didn't arrest the guy for anything he said, the cops arrested the guy because he refused to leave.
And, the real irony in all of this is that it's going to HELP the man's civil case that he was arrested. The school board really shot themselves in the foot (worse than they already were) by having the guy arrested. Now, the guy (and every other parent) is going to have even more ammunition to show that the school board lost their minds and need to be kicked out of office.
But, the cops did NOTHING wrong. If a school official trespasses someone, the cops must first ask the man to leave, and if he doesn't leave, the cops must arrest him. That's how the law works. It doesn't matter what the cops think about the school politics. It doesn't matter who the cops think is right or wrong. The only thing that matters is that the man refused to leave when asked.
Remember, this isn't a public sidewalk, where anybody can go, and it's never trespassing. This is a school. Yes, trespassing applies to public buildings, just like private ones. And, regardless of the fact that the school board was completely in the wrong on every other issue, they had the right to trespass the guy, and the police MUST abide.
This isn't a matter of first amendment rights. The man wasn't arrested for that. The cops don't deal with that. The courts do. That's where those matters are solved. So, why do you think the cops had anything to do with violating 1st amendment rights? What ARE you talking about?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@keymaker2112
Pfffttt. So, the comment you made has nothing to do with this video? That's your response? Then, you basically backtrack 12 hours later, saying that (essentially) yes, your comment DOES have to do with this video?
Good grief.
Look, backtracker, the cops have ONE decision to make in a situation like this, and that's it. Just one. If the board asks them to trespass the guy, and the guy refuses to leave, then the cops must decide whether there is enough cause for arrest, or not. They don't decide whether it's right or wrong that the board asked them to trespass the guy. They don't act as judge and jury about whether the guy is guilty of trespassing. They make one decision, and one decision only, and that is: did the person refuse to leave when asked? That's it. That's the only decision the cops can make in this situation. From there, it's up to the courts to decide whether the trespass was legal or not.
Sigh.
Just stop pretending to know things you know nothing about. It's really that simple. You don't need to backtrack. You don't need to tapdance. You just need to admit (to yourself) that you don't really understand the civics of these situations, and ask questions before you spew your nonsense. Is that REALLY that difficult?
1
-
1
-
@keymaker2112
Pffffttt. And, what EXACTLY do you think would happen to a cop who doesn't trespass someone when the authorities of that building ask the cop to trespass the person? If someone was in your house, and he refused to leave, and you called the cops to trespass the person, and the cop said, "I'm sorry, I don't really believe this person should be trespassed, it's your own problem," what EXACTLY would you do? Good grief. Look, clown, you can sit there and pretend to know things you don't know all day long. It seems to be what YouTube comments are for, for people like you. You like to pretend you know things you don't. But, as much as you want to sit there and pretend, the reality is that if an authority of a facility asks for someone to be trespassed, then the cop must trespass that person. The cop doesn't make a judgment call. The cop doesn't override the law. Trespassing is a very clear and straightforward concept. If you are asked to leave, you have to leave, otherwise you're trespassing.
From there, it's up to the courts to decide whether the authorities should or shouldn't have trespassed the person, whether those charges will stick, or not. But, a cop doesn't make that choice. Good grief. Cops are not judge and jury. That's why we have a court system, and not just cops alone.
In this case, I hope the person who was arrested sues the school/board, and gets a huge settlement, like $200K or higher. And, I hope every parent of a child in that school gets $40K for the ridiculous stuff they're doing. But, the cops did nothing wrong. The cops didn't have a choice but to arrest the guy. He refused to leave when asked repeatedly, therefore he was trespassing. The board should never have trespassed the guy in the first place, of course. But, the cops themselves must abide by the direction of the school board, and trespass the guy, whether the cops agree with them or not.
Go ahead, keep on pretending you know things you don't know. I couldn't care less. People like you are just clowns.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, it depends on what you mean. Large donations to private universities are legal. But, if the applicant is massively unqualified, usually the university still won't allow admission, even with large donations. On the other hand, bribing individuals to cheat on the SAT scores, bribing other individuals to falsify sports status, etc., isn't legal, and falsifies the qualifications, so a university doesn't even have the correct information to decide if an applicant is qualified.
1
-
1
-
1
-
What a pathetic display. Jordan needs to go sue the virus for causing the shutdown, not argue with Fauci as if he caused it. And, Fauci needs to give an actual number, like, for example, "when we reach 1,000 cases per day, we can go back to normal." What nonsense. Fauci has had a year to contemplate where the "finish line" should be, and how to quantify it. And, Jordan needs to stop screaming at the wind, yelling as if Fauci caused the virus. We have had a half million deaths from the virus, and it would have been 10 million if we didn't take the precautions we did. Neither one of these people behaved appropriately in this meeting.
1
-
Most of this stuff can be Googled pretty easily. But, in brief, the admission department, and the university as a whole, is also a victim. They bribed the coach of the crew/rowing team to help falsify the application and credentials. But, there's no evidence that the university (as a whole) knew that the credentials were falsified. The plan was to falsify the athletic credentials to get them into the school's crew/rowing team (thus, admitted to the university), then fake an injury before ever needing to actually get into a boat and row. The university can't kick them out because of an injury. So, they would get into the university, and never actually contribute to the team that they were brought in to be a part of, and then get their degrees without ever rowing a boat. The main two people who got the money were (1) the coach of the crew/rowing team, Laura Janke, who helped falsify the documents and launder the money, and (2) the "academic admissions advisor" William Rick Singer, who set up the bribes and also laundered the money, by passing it through a fake charity. EDIT: Note, he was not a university employee, he was an independent "consultant" who helped many rich people get their kids into schools via fraudulent means.
You didn't ask, but, the other irony is that the fake charity was supposedly to help underprivileged kids get into schools. Meanwhile, the actual purpose was to do the exact opposite, by blocking underprivileged kids from gaining admission, and to promote over-privileged stealing their admission spots. And, the icing on the cake is that Lori Loughlin (and her husband) then claimed those bribes as a tax deduction.
1
-
1
-
1
-
No. The issue here is trespassing. That's why the cops arrested him. It had nothing to do with civil rights. Let me give you an analogy. If the man was standing naked, saying the exact same things, the cops would arrest him for being naked in public, not for the things he's saying. Yet, there'd be an ignorant clown like you, thinking that the cops were arresting him for what he was saying, and not because of public nudity. Good grief. If the school board asks him to leave, whether it was right for them to do that or not, then he must leave, otherwise it's trespassing. The cops are not the judge and jury. The cops don't decide whether it was right or wrong to trespass the person. That's for the courts to decide, not for the cops to decide themselves.
I mean, this is the real irony about people like you. If the cops follow procedure correctly, you scream about civil rights and stuff, which don't even apply. If the cops decide to be judge and jury, and decide for themselves who to arrest or not, then you scream about cops overstepping their boundaries.
Get a clue. You don't know what you're talking about.
1
-
What the board did about every topic was ridiculous, outlandish, and I hope they all get thrown out of office. But, the cops do not get to make that call. If the school officials trespass someone, the cops must trespass that person. It's really that simple. The cops are not judge and jury. They make the arrest, and leave the rest up to the courts. Imagine that the cops took a personal stand about someone who refused to leave your home, for example. Would you want the cops to say, "sorry, we're not taking the guy off of your property because we don't agree with your politics, so we're letting him stay"? Oh, and before you say something like "public property, he has a right to stay," nope, sorry, that's wrong. There's a difference between public property like a sidewalk, vs. a building that happens to be owned by the public. The officials CAN trespass people from the building.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shooks555
Good gods, could you get any dumber? The 1st Amendment has nothing to do with it. The guy wasn't arrested for speaking. The guy was arrested for TRESPASSING.
Sheeeessssshhhhh.
Here are the concepts you do not understand:
1) You don't understand the difference between public property (like a sidewalk), vs. a building that the public owns (like a school or courthouse or government offices, etc.). You think that people are allowed to just be in a government building when they're asked to leave?? Um, no. Since you don't understand this example, I'll use other examples to illustrate the point: Do you think you're allowed to wander around a school when kids are there? No. Do you think you're allowed to go into a ladies' room and say, "this is public property, I'm allowed to be here"? No. Can you go into a judge's chamber and say "this is public property, I can be here"? No. When the school officials say that someone needs to leave, else be trespassed, then that's how it goes, public building or not. Public property (like a sidewalk) is NOT the same as a building that happens to be owned by the public. Good grief.
2) The cops make one decision, and one decision only, in a case like this. Did the person refuse to leave when asked? If yes, arrest. If no, don't arrest. They don't get to decide whether the trespass will hold up in a court or not. They decide only whether there is enough cause to make the arrest. And, the only cause involved here was whether the guy refused to leave (which he did).
3) Yes, courts throw stuff out all the time, for many reasons. Sometimes it's just leniency. Sometimes it's a wrongful arrest. Sometimes people take a plea. Sometimes there are multiple charges, and the judges/juries have to pick from them. You sit here and cite examples of people getting trespass charges dismissed, as if that's any different than the billion other charges that get dismissed. Yes, getting charges dismissed happens every day. So what? It doesn't mean that the cops shouldn't arrest.
4) The cops don't get to decide about the merits of a case. The cops are not the judge and jury. But, apparently, you demand them to be exactly that. You want the cops to decide whether or not the board had the right to trespass the guy. That's ridiculous. The BOARD decides that!!! Not the cops!!! Sheeessshh. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Look, dummy, I hope that every member of that board gets kicked out of their positions. I hope the man who was arrested sues the school/board. And, frankly, I hope every parent of any child in that school sues the school/board also. I would like to see the man who was arrested get at least $200,000 for wrongfully trespassing the guy, and for the underlying ridiculous policies they're trying to implement. And, I hope every other parent in that school system gets $40,000 from a lawsuit like this also.
But, the cops DID NOTHING WRONG, you moron.
1
-
1
-
@mikehenkes
YOU SAID: "I do not care what that charge is."
== OBVIOUSLY!!!! If you cared, then you'd know how wrong you are. But, you don't care if you're right or wrong.
YOU SAID: "He was arrested because an elected government body decided they did not want to hear a/multiple citizens grievance with them."
== Yes, that is what it boils down to. Congratulations. You finally got something correct.
YOU SAID: "Period all stop the end."
== Wrong. The arrest is where the process BEGINS, not where it ends. Good grief. This will have its day in court. And, it will likely be followed by lawsuits. This is probably going to go on for at least 2 years. So, spare me the "the end" comment. This is only the beginning.
YOU SAID: "It's foolish to even consider that an elected body can have a scheduled meeting open to the public with a scheduled time and for you to even assert that within that time he could be trespassing."
== Wrong. The officials can trespass someone at any point they see fit. If they do, then the police must abide, and arrest for trespassing.
YOU SAID: "Stop defending the Blue Line."
== Stop slandering the Blue Line.
YOU SAID: "It as it always does will only defend the elites."
== Pffttt. Hilarious!!!! You think those ridiculous clowns in the school board are "elites"?? What's wrong with your brain? They are an incompetent band of buffoons that deserve to be kicked out of their positions for their ridiculous policies. I hope that the man who got arrested sues the board/school and gets at least $200,000 for their hideous actions. And, I hope every other parent joins a class-action lawsuit, and gets at least $40,000 each. And, I hope the school board members are booted out the door, and never serve on any board ever again. But, you're calling them "elites"?? What??!?!?!? Good gods, you are one backward individual. Seriously, you have a lot of loose screws.
YOU SAID: "They will make up and or charge you with BS to do it."
== Wrong. Trespassing is a real charge. If the officials ask you to leave, you must leave. That's what trespassing is. It's not "BS," it's a real thing. And, the cops must abide.
YOU SAID: "They are the elites paid protection service not ours."
== Oh, spare me, you backward clown. If someone was at your house, and you asked the person to leave, and the person refuses, you can call the police, and they will trespass the person and arrest him. They'll protect you in the same way that they'll protect a school board. Like it or not, public building or not, the officials are allowed to trespass people. That's just the reality that you do not understand. The school isn't a sidewalk. You can't be trespassed from walking on a sidewalk. But, a publicly owned building is not all that different than a private home, when it comes to trespassing. The officials of that public building can trespass someone, the same way a private individual can trespass someone.
Look, dummy, the cops are not there to pass judgment. They are not judges and juries. They determine if a trespass is occurring (which it was), and make the arrest. The rest is up to the court system. THAT is where the real battles are done. But, people like you don't seem to understand that. And, frankly, you fail to reason how much stronger the man's legal case is after being arrested. The board is going to go down even HARDER because they had the man arrested. They're going to wish they never stopped that meeting. They're going to wish they never trespassed the man. But, now that they did, those "elites" (sigh, they're as stupid as you are), are really going to go down even harder because they did that. They're certainly not getting elected back into their positions. And, frankly, I doubt they'll even be able to serve the rest of their current terms.
Look, clown, just admit that you have no idea what you're talking about. Is it really that hard? What's so difficult about just being wrong? Why do people like you refuse to see reality?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CC-db4bg
I'm not fan of affirmative action. But, if you can't tell the difference between affirmative action vs. bribery, fraud, money laundering, tax evasion, falsifying credentials, etc., then there's a hole in your head, and you need to see a doctor. At least the affirmative action students actually intend on doing what they are admitted to do. Lori Loughlin's kids were admitted to the university to be members of the crew rowing team, when the plan from the start was never to row a single day on the team. They faked "injuries" and never performed the tasks they were admitted to perform, relying on the knowledge that they can't kick you out for being injured. At least the affirmative action students actually do the stuff they are admitted to do (row crew, play basketball, learn physics, whatever). Lori's kids, nope, the plan was to NEVER do what they were admitted to do. And, they committed a parade of illegal actions in order to do it.
1
-
YOU SAID: "You can't be trespassed from public tax payer funded property with out committing a crime or breaking an ordinance."
== HILARIOUS!!! Go to Area 51 (top secret facility) and try that speech. Demand entry, and refuse to leave. Watch how long it'll be before you're either dragged out or shot. Try that at the White House. Demand entry. It's a public taxpayer funded property, right? Tell them that you have the right to be there. Try walking into a judge's private chamber in a courthouse. How many seconds do you think will go by before you're arrested?
YOU SAID: "A constitutionally protected activity cannot be turned into a crime or used as a reason for disorderly."
== Well, it can. But, that's what the courts are for. The school board was way out of line for their policies, for not listening to their constituents, and for ending the meeting early. But, again, that's what courts are for. You sue them. That's how this works. But, if you refuse to leave when asked, yes, you're trespassing.
YOU SAID: "These deputies are not enforcing a law"
== Yes, trespassing IS a law.
YOU SAID: "they are feeling enforcers working in the interest of the school board. They are tyrant oath breakers who swore to uphold our rights hold them accountable."
== Wrong. They are enforcing the law correctly. And, why are you crying about it? The case against the board just got stronger because the guy was arrested. The cops didn't do anything wrong. They were obligated to trespass people when the board says so. But, the board... they should be thrown out of office. And, I hope the parents sue the school board into oblivion. Sorry that you don't understand the law, but, until you do, keep your ridiculous cop-hatred to yourself. The cops don't have a voice on the politics. They don't get involved with free speech violations. They don't exercise their own personal opinions during an arrest, nor would you want them to do so. If an official of the school demands that someone is trespassing, the cops must do the arrest. The cops are not judge and jury. That's why we have courts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
What the board did about every topic was ridiculous, outlandish, and I hope they all get thrown out of office. But, the cops do not get to make that call. If the school officials trespass someone, the cops must trespass that person. It's really that simple. The cops are not judge and jury. They make the arrest, and leave the rest up to the courts. Imagine that the cops took a personal stand about someone who refused to leave your home, for example. Would you want the cops to say, "sorry, we're not taking the guy off of your property because we don't agree with your politics, so we're letting him stay"? Oh, and before you say something like "public property, he has a right to stay," nope, sorry, that's wrong. There's a difference between public property like a sidewalk, vs. a building that happens to be owned by the public. The officials CAN trespass people from the building.
1
-
1
-
Hilarious!!!! So, that's how you think this works?? Amazing. Absolutely amazing. It's clear that you don't know the difference between public property (like a sidewalk), vs. a building owned by the public. I mean, I could explain it. But, maybe it's just easier for you to find out for yourself. Why don't you march over to the White House and demand entry, claiming that you have a right, as a taxpayer, to be inside a publicly owned building? See how that works out for you. Or, go march into a judge's chamber in a courthouse, and refuse to leave, under the premise that it's a taxpayer office, therefore you think you have the right to be there. See how that goes. Or, go walk into City Hall, and try to get into a mayor's office, and refuse to leave, because it's a public building. I'll bet you could even hold your breath for the time it would take to be locked up in the city jail.
No civil rights were violated here, dummy. The issue here is that the school board asked the police to trespass the person from the building, the man refused to leave, so he was trespassing. The police had to arrest him. That's it. End of story.
Now, I hope the man who was arrested will sue the school/board, and win tons of money. And I hope the board gets kicked out of office, and will never serve on another school board again in their lives. But, if a proper authority of the school asks the cops to trespass a person, then the cops MUST trespass the person. It's not a civil rights issue. Good grief.
People like you are ridiculous. The cops did their jobs correctly, and you want them fired for it? How about blaming the school board instead of blaming the cops? That's where the real blame is here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Jaems_Scott
No, what makes me correct is the law. I mean, not only is there a mountain of case law that goes against what you said... not only did you wander all over the spectrum of ignorance, talking about civil rights, then shifting aimlessly to other concepts (wrongly)... not only are you completely illiterate, and don't know how to spell or punctuate... but, why do you suppose that this story hasn't even been reported like you're saying? Neither the right wing media, left wing media, or anything in between, are making the claims you're making. None of them. Nobody. The only people parading around, touting this stuff you're touting, are the completely ignorant. Sorry to say, there are too many of you ignorant YouTube warriors, who have NO CLUE what they're talking about on any level. You're all imbeciles, and quite proud to be imbeciles. It's very sad.
1
-
@Jaems_Scott
And, now you're back to civil rights again. What does that have to do with whether or not the person was trespassing when officials asked him to leave, and he refused? Good grief. What a total mess you are.
Look, just go back to school. Go learn something. You can barely write a sentence that doesn't have a million grammar/spelling/punctuation mistakes. That might not sound important to you, but, it's representative of why you don't know anything. If you can't write well, you can't read well. If you can't read well, you have very low reading comprehension. And, if you have low reading comprehension, you will fail to understand a lot of things (case in point). Start there. Go back to school. Take some reading and writing classes. Then, in a few years, maybe then, if you dive into the law, you might understand it better.
I didn't claim that media were any sources of virtue. The fact that you think that... is a product of your low reading comprehension skills. My point was that NO media outlets are reporting this story like your interpretation. I used that angle because you refused to absorb the other (more relevant) angles. I thought maybe there'd be a chance that you'd understand it better if I chose that angle instead.
But, your mind is too far gone. You need about 6-8 years of reading and writing skills before you can absorb what you need to absorb to understand these concepts. Come back here when you get those skills.
1
-
1
-
Good grief. What ARE you talking about? The cops have one decision to make. Is there cause to arrest, or not? If the man is being trespassed by the school board, and the man refuses to leave, the cops have no real choice in the matter. It's trespassing, they must arrest. And, that's why we have courts. Cops are not courts. Cops are not the judge and jury. Cops are not supposed to decide guilt or innocence. They decide if there is cause for arrest, and that's all. From there, the man can sue the living daylights out of the school/board, and I hope he does, and I hope the entire parent population that attended that meeting gets a bunch of huge checks for the ridiculous actions of the school board. But, for you to shift blame to the cops, for doing EXACTLY what they're supposed to do, is shameful.
1
-
YOU SAID: "Looks like we will start to see alot of privately owned airlines and shipping and trucking companies pop up around the states with their headquarters based outside of the states."
== What are you talking about? Are you under the impression that people are willing to connect through a different country to just fly across a couple of states? Or, are you unaware that foreign held airlines are not allowed to fly those kinds of domestic routes? I mean, basically, if you want to fly Qantas (for example) between Chicago and New York, you basically have to fly through Sydney, Australia to do it. Foreign held airlines can fly in and out of cities in the USA, but, not in between cities in the USA. You knew that before you posted your message, right?
YOU SAID: "Biden and his party of democrats and liberals are destroying this country! It needs to be stopped."
== Pffttt. As opposed to what? Republicans? Hey, whenever you want to wakie wakie and realize that all of the political parties are a nightmare in one way or another, you'll be better off for it.
YOU SAID: "I forsee"
== You can't even spell it. What could you possibly "forsee" (your spelling)?
YOU SAID: "another civil war in our near future if Biden and Nancy don't get out of office."
== Pffttt. Spare me. Every time there's a political power transfer from one party to another, there's a group of nutbags on the internet who scream about a civil war. Get real.
YOU SAID: "And not a war based on race rather a war based on political views."
== Fine. Go post that in a video about political views. Getting vaccinated (or not) has nothing to do with political views. It's a bunch of people who understand the science, and a bunch of people who don't.
YOU SAID: "Conservatives vs Liberals. Republicans vs Democrats. Hope I'm wrong"
== Don't forget "uneducated vs. educated." Good grief.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Pffttt. And, if it was your home, and you asked the cops to remove someone who refused to leave, do you want the cops to say, "sorry, we don't agree with your politics, therefore we're not going to arrest the guy, you'll have to deal with it yourself"?? (And, before you come back with something about "public property," sorry, that's not how it works.)
1
-
1
-
YOU SAID: "ok fine your right"
== My right what? Or, was that your barely literate attempt to say "you're"?
YOU SAID: "anytime A government official doesn’t like what you say all they have to do is use their thugs with guns to trespass you"
== You don't get to call police "thugs" just because you don't agree with the laws. Dummy, the police are there to enforce the laws. And, yes, if a government official trespasses you, and you refuse to leave, the police MUST trespass you. What would you have them do instead? The police are not judge and jury. The police do not inflict their own personal politics into whether or not you get arrested. I already gave you the example (which you ignored) of the police coming to your own house to trespass someone because you called them. Would you like it if they said, "nope, we're not removing this person from your property, because we don't agree with your politics"?? Is that how you want it to go? Look, dummy, there's a reason we have a court system. The police only decide whether a trespass occurred, and then make the arrest. That's all they do. From there, it's in the court's hands, and rightfully so. We do not WANT cops to make personal decisions about politics. Oh, but wait, YOU do. You want cops to make personal political decisions if it aligns with your politics, but, if the cops ever made a personal decision that doesn't align with your politics, you'd be the first to say, "hey, cops, keep your politics out of it, and just follow the law."
YOU SAID: "simple yay for the first amendment."
== Dummy, the cops don't get involved with that. That's what the courts are for. But, apparently, you can't get this through your skull. The man was NOT ARRESTED FOR SPEAKING. He was arrested for TRESPASSING. How many times does it take before that sinks in?
1
-
1
-
So, to explain, there's a difference between a public space like a sidewalk or something, vs. a building owned by the public. And, well, you might not think about at first. But, if you stop and think this through, you'll realize that most public buildings ARE very restricted, and they have the right to ask you to leave, and trespass you if you don't. Airports. The mayor's office. The private chambers of a judge at a courthouse. The ladies' room at a public park. Area 51, a top secret facility. I mean, even the school itself is off-limits during the day when kids are there, unless you get permission to be inside. So, yes, the board has the right to trespass the people at the meeting, if they refuse to leave. I hope the board gets sued, and all get kicked out of their positions. But, whether you like it or not, yes, the board can trespass people for not leaving when asked.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1