So, if we start arresting these jacknut "open 'er up" idiots

[maxrandb]

and charge them with felonies, do they lose the right to vote?

Civil Rights Protesters, Antiwar Protesters, Fascism Protesters were actually jailed for their protests

Martin Luther King Jr wrote "Letters from Birmingham Jail"... NOT "Letters from Birmingham Holiday Inn"

I'm betting that a couple of nights in jail would send them back to Mom's Basement faster than you could say "COFFEVVE"

These asspickles have sacrificed NOTHING!

Let's see if their convictions would allow them to actually face convictions.

They're nothing but errands boys sent by clerks.

[pandr32]

1. I do like your thinking

[The Magistrate]

2. In Some States, Sir, Yes, They Do, On Conviction

On conviction they also lose any right to own firearms.

I do tend towards the view forceful action would collapse this hot air balloon speedily....


"Defeat of a hated enemy is something to be for."

[rzemanfl]

4. I think, Sir, the hot air balloon would pass to their lawyers

and THEY'D be on the TV instead.

[The Magistrate]

5. But The Rank And File, Sir

Would at best be out on bond....


"Defeat of a hated enemy is something to be for."

[rzemanfl]

9. Indeed. I am guilty of mixing threads. I had just read one about TV

coverage of these morons before I responded to your post.

[The Magistrate]

10. No Trouble, Sir

Lawyers representing these shit-heels probably would seek air time, though a gag order from a presiding judge could shut that down in a hurry.


"Defeat of a hated enemy is something to be for."

[TheBlackAdder]

3. Those Open Up Idiots would have had mored cred if they didn't have Trump / MAGA / Confed Flags.

.

They just looked like a bunch of partisan assholes.

.

[The Magistrate]

6. Since That Is What They Are, Sir

It is well they make such open display, and leave no doubt they arre puling shit-heels.


"Defeat of a hated enemy is something to be for."

[BusyBeingBest]

7. We shouldn't make Cliven Bundy-type figures out of them--that would just

fuel more of this crap and provoke more defiance. No martyrs, just ignore them.

[The Magistrate]

13. Martyrdom Is Highly Overrated, Sir

The old Chinese governor's advice, 'Kill one, warn one hundred', proves out far more often. What encourages shit-heels like this is ignoring them. It makes them think they frighten the authorities and the populace alike, and blows up their already overweening self-esteem to ludicrous proportion. Corpses, wounds, and time in prison conduce to a more realistic assessment of their place in the world, and their capabilities to terrorize.


"Defeat of a hated enemy is something to be for."

[onenote]

8. To the extent they are committing any crime, it almost certainly is a misdemeanor.

[Chainfire]

23. exactly

However, many times committing a misdemeanor while armed converts the misdemeanor to a felony. I know that in my state that certainly applies to trespass. Simple trespass is a misdemeanor, armed trespass is a felony.

We have to be very careful about wanting to charge demonstrators with crimes, for what is good for the goose is also good for the other goose. As much as we hate the bastards, we have to support their right to protest legally. However if they commit crimes in the process of their protests, the hammer of the law needs to drop on their dumb asses.

If the protests are organized, I suspect that most of the "protesters" are counselled on how far they can go before the events begin.

There is noting that would serve their interests better than to make martyrs them by treating them unlawfully during their events.

[Hortensis]

11. Oh, come on. We're not the lock-em-up people who sic

cops on political opponents. We're the free speech and government of, by and for the people people. If we start acting like Republican fascists, we'll have our own liberal Democrats turning on us. Including me.

We're also not stupid. The more official attention to protests, the more impact they have. The usual action, except during murderous conservative police riots of course, is to arrest those who must be and control and otherwise let the others alone, or disperse them quietly as possible only if needed.

Btw, THIS is the difference between Trump tweet-bleating that his supporters should take to the streets and the REAL RW powers making it happen. I don't think for a minute that Trump asked some loyal personal friend to mount protests in cities across the nation and he said, "Oh, sure, buddy. Tomorrow?" These are agents of those McConnell & co. also serve at work.

[The Magistrate]

14. This Is A Mistake, Ma'am

We far too often allow vicious shit-heels to take advantage of our better natures, and we need to stop doing it. These are not mere political opponents; these are people under arms seeking to intimidate governments and do damage to the public's health. They need to be dealt with accordingly.


"Defeat of a hated enemy is something to be for."

[Hortensis]

20. Have you read accounts of those interviewed? These crowds

include a lot of people who want the shut-downs done a lot more surgically because they're being hurt bad and don't think it's necessary. And of course some who want to be good but are so partisan (like a lot of people here) that they assume the other side must wrong in any disagreement.

If you've been reading about this, you also know they're being portrayed as an important face of these crowds. One interview I listened to described a couple hundred MAGA types mostly clustered together, among a few thousand. And most of those were isolating themselves in and protesting from their cars.

Some of those are even likely among the over 70% who want MORE quarantine, not less, just different. For sure, those in the cars are NOT on McConnell's and Trump's side.

But like one woman facing bankruptcy being interviewed, I have to wonder why golf courses can be open but not plant nurseries. I've worked in one and not had another person come within 50 feet all morning.

Those who want the police to dish their antagonism for them, forget being smart or worrying about swing voters and winning elections, might consider taking up with one of the sourdough starter cults instead. A place to be very passionate while doing no harm.

[The Magistrate]

44. Such People, Ma'am, If they Are Actually To Be Found

Have made a very foolish choice of company, if they are coming out alongside the shit-heels who provide leadership and direction for this. I have remarkably little sympathy for people who exercise such poor judgement. I am of the view that the lawful orders of the governor in protection of the public health ought to be enforced by the civil authorities. Since arms are present in the crowds it is an illegal assembly, not a peaceable assembly, and ought to be dealt with by a command to lay down weapons, and if that command is not obeyed, it should be enforced as it would be against any disobedience of a police order to disarm. These people ought to be put to the test, of whether they will shoot at an officer of the law, or obey the law. It is necessary to strip them of the posture they are patriots and law-abiding persons, of heroic mien. This is not rocket surgery, it is what states do when lawful orders are flouted. A state may refrain from exercising its full authority, but that is a question of judgement --- it may be choosing a right course or a wrong course. So long as arms are present, not to act vigorously is to give the impression the state has been intimidated, and this only courts further difficulties.

[Hortensis]

45. Have you checked attendance compared to population figures?

I'm not normally in disagreement with you, and sorry to see it now, BUT

In every location demonstrators are a tiny, TINY fraction of people in the area and, again, at that many are attending self-isolating in cars.

Maybe think what both mean.

Polls show Americans overwhelmingly are more afraid of the virus than economic problems; not only support local controls but are afraid of having them lifted to soon; and overwhelmingly want a national lockdown.

Information. Perspective. When the going gets tough, the tough get to thinking.

[The Magistrate]

46. I Think That Tends More To Support Of My View, Ma'am

This is a quite small minority of reactionary agitators seeking to overthrow the will of the majority, intending to force adoption of a course that will cost many thousands more lives if they prevail.

I do not view this as some abstract exercise in freedom of speech. I view it as an attempt to commit murder, both for imagined political gain, and as a direct goal which success in the attempt would achieve.

[Hortensis]

50. Wow. The difference between protesters and murderers

is your opinion. Well, you have a lot of company in that, but are you really sure you're on the right side of this? Did I miss Joe Biden or President Obama calling on us to demonize and rage?

Tell you what. When the crowds of evil murderers grow to, say, a 10th of a percent of the population, I'll...nothing. No change.

[The Magistrate]

51. Clearly We View The Matter Diffrently, Ma'am

I doubt we will either of us convince the other: we have both made our views clear.

I will add only that I do not take cues for my thinking from any political leader, even ones I support or might admire. I long since formed the habit of drawing my own conclusions, and following my own mind.

Be well, and stay safe!

[Hortensis]

52. No change as in I'll stick to my principles. None of the people

in the cars behaved despicably, and I won't demonize them. And I mentioned Biden and Obama not to copy mindlessly but to compare our behaviors to. I'm pretty sure erasing the differences between us and demonizers on the right is not the way they plan to win this election.

Stay safe.

[democrattotheend]

47. Thank you

I'm glad to see I'm not the only person on here who still believes in the First Amendment. We rightly protested when the Bush Administration used "keeping us safe" as a rationale for eroding the constitution after 9/11. Yet so many Democrats seem to think this is different. It's not. The Ben Franklin quote about sacrificing liberty for security is just as true now as it was 19 years ago.

[tritsofme]

12. Authoritarianism: Not just for the right!

[The Magistrate]

16. Government Is Authority, Sir

It upholds its authority, or it is no government at all.

The question of whether it is right to exercise authority cannot be asked without reference to the end sought by its exercise. The 1st Amendment specifies peaceable assembly, and an armed crowd is by definition not a peaceable assembly.

[tritsofme]

19. OP is looking for excuses to jail and disenfranchise political opponents.

Not typical hallmarks of a healthy democracy. I’ve seen nothing in the reporting on these sad little gatherings that suggest such an extreme response is warranted.

[The Magistrate]

22. Which Is What Should Happen, Sir, To Enemies Of Democracy

These may be sad little gatherings, but they ought to be made a damned sight sadder.

So long as arms appear in these gatherings, they should be treated as insurrection. By definition, people under arms are not engaged in peaceable assembly.


"Defeat of a hated enemy is something to be for."

[tritsofme]

24. I don't know the backstory on whether or not some individuals have been armed.

However OP does not specify that their problem is limited to armed protestors, it seems closer to a Trumpian “lock them all up” attitude.

[The Magistrate]

28. Photographs Of Those In Michigan, Sir

Are carrying firearms.

I would support no more than the usual police procedures of kettling and forceful arrest directed against 'occupy' protesters and the like, where there are no arms present. But where arms are present I would have no objection to volley fire from a National Guard unit.


"Defeat of a hated enemy is something to be for."

[tritsofme]

30. Thankfully such questions are above the pay grade of magistrates.

I would hope for cooler heads and much more caution before we start having the National Guard shoot protestors, but I wouldn’t want to interrupt your fantasy here...

[The Magistrate]

31. I Recall Kent State, Sir

That was no fantasy.

I am familiar with Labor history in this country. Opening fire on peaceable and unarmed crowds has been routine at times in these United States.


"Defeat of a hated enemy is something to be for."

[tritsofme]

32. I do as well. Which is why I am so appalled by such cavalier suggestions that we shoot at crowds.

Citing some of the most egregious assaults that shame our history to justify further acts along the same line?

My only question is: What the hell is wrong with you?

[The Magistrate]

33. Your Question, Sir, Could As Readily Be Turned On You

Constituted authority has opened fire on peaceable crowds assembled in favor of left and progressive, even pacifistic objectives.

On what grounds should constituted authority not open fire on armed crowds assembled in favor of reactionary and fascist objectives?

Given that a government has the right to vindicate its authority, and that a state by definition claims the sole right to use violence for political ends where its jurisdiction runs, only two answers suggest themselves as likely.

First, that government here inherently opposes left and progressive ideas. This is not impossible, but if accepted does put people of left and progressive views in an interesting position.

Second, that government here is intimidated by reactionary and fascist elements under arms, and dare not deal with them in the traditional manner governments have employed against insurrectionists so long as government has existed. This would indicate that government here is a sham, and the real rulers of the country are an armed rabble of reactionaries and fascists.



"Defeat of a hated enemy is something to be for."

[tritsofme]

34. I'll make this simple. "Constituted authority" should not be firing on anyone.

The political objectives of the protestors is wholly irrelevant.

Its not even clear that is always unlawful for Jim-Bob to march around with his gun, given the crazy gun laws in many red states.

And yet, you seem determined to shoot down such crowds, regardless of their conduct or any violence...on what, the basis of a single person being armed?

This has been a sick and disgusting exchange, shining light on some very ugly authoritarian impulses. As I said, thank goodness these decisions are left to better men.

[The Magistrate]

39. But They Are Relevant, Sir, Always

And always condition what is the proper response. I have no patience for the pie in the sky idealist game of ignoring the actual circumstances, or for the pretense that the same response is and must be the correct one for all situations. Violence is at times appropriate, and at other times not appropriate, and in this vale of tears it is nonesense to pretend otherwise. I have not time to repeat myself for someone who does not seem able to comprehend the subject under discussion, and so, Sir, will take my leave of this exchange. I have dishes to wash, and a spaghetti sauce to get underway for the ladies of the household this evening.


"I'm going home now. Someone get me some frogs and some bourbon."



"Defeat of a hated enemy is something to be for."

[tritsofme]

40. If you view the First Amendment as pie in the sky idealism, your constitution is more defective than

earlier thought.

[The Magistrate]

42. The Relevant Text, Sir

"...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

A crowd of men bearing arms is by definition not peaceable.

[stopdiggin]

35. yes. no such distinction.

and that is why I can't support the "lock em up" crowd, or sentiment. Additionally (to the extent that I'm aware) assembly with firearms may make a lot of people (including LE, although that's open to debate) uncomfortable .. but it is not illegal. And the idea that we should be arresting people for protesting under banners that we disagree with (which is clearly the essence here) .. is not only wrong headed, but dangerous.

[maxrandb]

27. I'm not "looking for excuses"

If they are violating laws and ordinance, they should be arrested.

Let's not forget, people were jailed for sitting at a soda shop and sitting in a bus seat.

Some of those folks knew they were facing jail and had courage to face that.

These asspickles are expecting to be treated as heroes.

There's a huge difference in knowing you'll face true consequences, and knowing you won't.

Everyone can run into a breach, when you know it won't open and harm you.

Again, these folks are sacrificing nothing!

Let's see what they would do in the face of adversity.

[The Magistrate]

29. Well Said, Sir

Courage is the form every virtue must take at the sticking point, and one suspects no virtue is in any of these shit-heels, in any form....


"Defeat of a hated enemy is something to be for."

[treestar]

37. I don't think that they are looking to jail them

as political opponents, just pointing out that they are breaking a law - the governor's declared shutdown. And in fact, many protestors did break a law. That we consider it heroic - they broke a bad law and went to jail for it - doesn't mean that freepers who break the law in protest shouldn't be subject to the same thing. Put their money where their mouth is - are they willing to go to jail for their "freedom?"

[The Magistrate]

43. Well Said, Sir

Civil disobedience in fact gains its force by the willingness to accept punishment for one's actions, whether in the form of violence upon one's body or restriction of one's liberty, or both.

These people aim at intimidation, and that cannot be tolerated.



"Defeat of a hated enemy is something to be for."

[Bernardo de La Paz]

15. Greatest Generation stormed beaches. Current generation has difficulty staying home. . . nt

[The Magistrate]

17. That Is Unfair To The Vast Majority Of The People, Sir

These shit-heels are a tiny minority, and represent no one but themselves....


"Defeat of a hated enemy is something to be for."

[Bernardo de La Paz]

21. Your exact point is true. These protesters are not actually representative, but

But it does strike me that these people, many of them undoubtedly "preppers", are so unprepared to handle stay-at-home because they are needy, self-centered, unimaginative and impatient.

A gun does not create self-discipline in a vacuum. Bullets do not support the mind, though perhaps some might find fingering them like rosary beads to be calming.

They prepped for zombies attacking their homes and for decades didn't prep their minds. What did they expect to do in their bunkers anyway?

[The Magistrate]

25. There Is Something To That, Sir

There is some question in my mind whether they actually cannot handle being more or less at home than usual. I see no reason to impute honesty to these shit-heels. They are not really protesting anything, they are complaining they are not in charge even though a great majority of the country disagrees with them, and opposes all they stand for.


"Defeat of a hated enemy is something to be for."

[Bernardo de La Paz]

26. Yes. Elsewhere in DU, a point was made this is their big moment to swagger on stage. . . . nt

[Initech]

18. Then they would really claim that there is a tyrannical government out to get them.

It's definitely a catch 22.

[stopdiggin]

36. it's just a really stupid idea

we do have a few of them that occasionally crop up ...
--- ---

[Calculating]

38. Sorry I prefer to live in a country with RIGHTS

Maybe the more authoritative types would be happier moving to China where the government has no issues shooting protestors, locking them up, and running them down with tanks.

[maxrandb]

41. See, therein lies the problem

Last edited Sat Apr 18, 2020, 05:28 PM - Edit history (1)

We seem to only bring out tanks, lock people up, shoot them and turn loose the dogs and firehoses on them when it's the "left" protesting and marching.

I'm just suggesting we be "fair and ballanced".

And you know what? Those people that marched accross the bridge in Selma knew what was waiting for them on the other side.

These folks know the only thing waiting for them is a plateful of Totinas Pizza Rolls in mom's basement and maybe an interview on Faux News.

[democrattotheend]

48. Thank you!

Glad to see there are at least a few people here who still believe this.

[Iggo]

49. What felonies? And not always do we lose our right to vote when convicted of felonies.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/felon-voting-rights.aspx

In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated.

In 16 states and the District of Columbia, felons lose their voting rights only while incarcerated, and receive automatic restoration upon release.

In 21 states, felons lose their voting rights during incarceration, and for a period of time after, typically while on parole and/or probation. Voting rights are automatically restored after this time period. Former felons may also have to pay any outstanding fines, fees or restitution before their rights are restored as well.

In 11 states felons lose their voting rights indefinitely for some crimes, or require a governor’s pardon in order for voting rights to be restored, face an additional waiting period after completion of sentence (including parole and probation) or require additional action before voting rights can be restored.