Westboro hit for $11 mil in damages

Originally posted by no1marauder
This post is incredibly stupid even for you. The point is that the link given offered no support for SG's claims. Do you dispute that or are you merely trolling?

This post is incredibly stupid even for you.
And you criticize me for not trying to better myself.

The point is that the link given offered no support for SG's claims. Do you dispute that or are you merely trolling?
No, the point is that facts which point to the truth are sometimes complex and multi-facted. Taking one video as support and assuming that no antecedent action either took place or had bearing upon the entirety of the situation is incredibly naive. Or, as you so poignantly described, stupid.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]This post is incredibly stupid even for you.
And you criticize me for not trying to better myself.

The point is that the link given offered no support for SG's claims. Do you dispute that or are you merely trolling?
No, the point is that facts which point to the truth are sometimes complex and multi-facted. Taking one video as support a ...[text shortened]... the entirety of the situation is incredibly naive. Or, as you so poignantly described, stupid.[/b]

SG: Edit: Here's Westboro accepting police protection:
http://animation.speakfree.net/video/20050521_seaford-de.wmv

The video, of course, shows no such thing. Blame SG for offerring something as proof of his claim that doesn't support it rather than blaming me for (accurately) saying it does not.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The video, of course, shows no such thing. Blame SG for offerring something as proof of his claim that doesn't support it rather than blaming me for (accurately) saying it does not.

Blame yourself for not having the honesty to admit that a human being who has to dodge bricks because of his controversial statements would probably take steps to protect him/herself.

Blame yourself for being unyielding in your position, even when it has been shown to be blatantly false, as in other threads on here.

Blame yourself for your hypocrisy in condemning others for personalizing issues when you continually do this in your own posts.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Blame yourself for not having the honesty to admit that a human being who has to dodge bricks because of his controversial statements would probably take steps to protect him/herself.

Blame yourself for being unyielding in your position, even when it has been shown to be blatantly false, as in other threads on here.

Blame yourself for your hypocrisy in condemning others for personalizing issues when you continually do this in your own posts.

1) BS; when you make a claim you have to offer some proof of the claim (which you have failed to);

2) Really don't know what you're talking about. "Blatantly false"??? I doubt it.

3) I didn't personalize anything in the post you are responding to. Stop crying.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The video, of course, shows no such thing. Blame SG for offerring something as proof of his claim that doesn't support it rather than blaming me for (accurately) saying it does not.

What exactly do you think the video shows?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
What exactly do you think the video shows?

Nemesio

You must have missed this post:

It looks like the police forced them to leave in that video and then did a pretty poor job of "protecting" them; if someone chucked a rock through your windshield you'd probably expect them to get arrested, wouldn't you? Doesn't appear that that happened in the link you gave.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It looks like the police forced them to leave in that video and then did a pretty poor job of "protecting" them; if someone chucked a rock through your windshield you'd probably expect them to get arrested, wouldn't you? Doesn't appear that that happened in the link you gave.

Um. I have no idea if the person who tossed the brick got arrested.
The video doesn't show that, but it certainly doesn't exclude it.

I'm just trying to figure out what you two are arguing about. It seems
to me that the police ushered them into their car. It appeared to me
that they weren't obligated to leave, but chose to do so because of the
climate created by the crowd and did not feel safe. The police assisted
them in this endeavor.

Given the rowdy nature of the crowd, certainly you don't think it's a failure
on the police's part that their window got broken, right? It seemed to
me from the video that they were trying to contain the crowd. I should
hope that any member of the crowd that did something illegal (like
break a car window) got arrested.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Um. I have no idea if the person who tossed the brick got arrested.
The video doesn't show that, but it certainly doesn't exclude it.

I'm just trying to figure out what you two are arguing about. It seems
to me that the police ushered them into their car. It appeared to me
that they weren't obligated to leave, but chose to do so because of the
clim the crowd that did something illegal (like
break a car window) got arrested.

Nemesio

I found this: http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071103/NEWS/711030370/1006/NEWS


What the discussion was about was whether the Phelps had requested police protection in advance. This article states that they had to apply for a permit, were limited to a 45 minute demonstration that was far away from the funeral (one of the relatives of the dead soldier says "they [the city] took extreme measures to protect us"😉 and that the van they left in was city-owned. That sounds to me more like the city was setting the rules rather than the Phelps and it appears to me from the video and article that the Phelps were compelled to leave at that time.

And 4 people were arrested including the one who broke the van's window, so the police did do their job and I was incorrect to suggest otherwise. For that act of felony criminal mischief, he had to pay for the city's window but all charges were dropped.

Originally posted by no1marauder
This article states that they had to apply for a permit, were limited to a 45 minute demonstration that was far away from the funeral (one of the relatives of the dead soldier says "they [the city] took extreme measures to protect [b]us" ) and that the van they left in was city-owned. That sounds to me more like the city was setting the rules rather than the Phelps.[/b]

Well, as repulsive as Phelps and his crowd is, the restrictions on their
demonstration seem beyond the scope of the Constitution, no? That is,
Phelps' free speech seems unduly restricted as best as I can tell (as revolting
as the content of his speech is).

It would seem to me that if the cemetary is public land, they should be
allowed on it, not to interrupt the ceremony, but to protest it if they so
choose. If the cemetary is privately owned, they should be allowed to
stand on the public land at the entrances/exits in order to protest it.

The information you have now provided makes any lawsuit against Westboro
even more absurd.

Nemesio

Originally posted by no1marauder
1) BS; when you make a claim you have to offer some proof of the claim (which you have failed to);

2) Really don't know what you're talking about. "Blatantly false"??? I doubt it.

3) I didn't personalize anything in the post you are responding to. Stop crying.

1) OK, good rule. I want you to prove your claim that FreakyKBH's first post in this thread is, in fact, stupider than his average post.

3) I'm not referring to something from a single post. Recently, in some other threads, you have done so.

Why didn't the Westboro protesters resist when the police told them to leave? Why didn't they argue with the police? That's what they would have done if they wished to refuse protection. Oops, can't say that, sorry, my mind reading skills are acting up again. 😵

Originally posted by SwissGambit
1) OK, good rule. I want you to prove your claim that FreakyKBH's first post in this thread is, in fact, stupider than his average post.

3) I'm not referring to something from a single post. Recently, in some other threads, you have done so.

Why didn't the Westboro protesters resist when the police told them to leave? Why didn't they argue with the ...[text shortened]... se protection. Oops, can't say that, sorry, my mind reading skills are acting up again. 😵

You consider doing what the police order you to do as "accepting their protection"???? What do you think would have happened to them if they had refused to do what they were told? They would have been under "police protection" - in the local jail.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You consider doing what the police order you to do as "accepting their protection"???? What do you think would have happened to them if they had refused to do what they were told? They would have been under "police protection" - in the local jail.

Wait a second. Are you suggesting that they were ordered into the van and if they had not done
so they would have been arrested? The video doesn't imply (or reject) that claim. What I saw
was the police doing their job in assisting a persecuted bunch of people into a safer environment.
It wasn't special police protection -- they should do that for any group of people assaulted by a
mob -- but the only thing I think would have happened if they didn't accept the help was that they
would have gotten hurt because (obviously) the crowd was getting out of control.

What reason do you have to think that they were threatened with arrest (as opposed to feeling
threatened by the crowd)?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Wait a second. Are you suggesting that they were ordered into the van and if they had not done
so they would have been arrested? The video doesn't imply (or reject) that claim. What I saw
was the police doing their job in assisting a persecuted bunch of people into a safer environment.
It wasn't special police protection -- they should do that for any hey were threatened with arrest (as opposed to feeling
threatened by the crowd)?

Nemesio

A) I never said they were "threatened with arrest" did I?

B) Here's the pertinent part of the article I cited:

As the 45-minute demonstration neared its end, the crowd pressed forward toward the van that would carry the Kansas church members out of town.

Dunn, a former Marine and Vietnam veteran, looked inside and saw that same smiling face that had spit on the flag a few moments before. He slammed his fist into the glass.

"It just exploded," said Dunn, 58, of Seaford, one of four adults arrested that day. "I didn't mean to bust the window out, but that old boy just looked out and grinned. ... I'm an ex-Marine. That just cut me to the core."

Seaford Police Chief Gary Morris, who was in the middle of the melee, called it one of "one of the most intense emotional situations I've ever personally witnessed."

The fundamentalist Christian church believes God is punishing America because of its tolerance of homosexuality. Its 75 members are mostly members of the Phelps family.

In Seaford, town leaders had been advised by attorneys that they must issue the group a permit to honor the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. They chose Gateway Park because it was out of sight and earshot of the church where family and friends said goodbye to Palmer.

Hundreds of people formed a corridor of flags along the street, softly singing "The Star-Spangled Banner" and reciting the Lord's Prayer.

Cory Palmer's mother, Danna, never saw or heard the protesters, but she knew they were there.

"Our city had forewarned us of that," she said. "They took extreme measures to protect us from that".

........

After Dunn's arrest, a local attorney took his case pro bono and the charges were later dropped. His brother-in-law wrote the city a check for $1,700 to pay for damage to the city's van.


So the demonstration was limited to 45 minutes and the city provided a van (and presumably a driver) to carry the Phelps out of town. On the video, the police are pointing to the van and telling the demonstrators to go there. Obviously, if had been prearranged for the van to be there at that time.

From all that, plus the fact that the city reluctantly granted the permit and isolated the Phelps' from the funeral, I consider that the probable result if the demonstrators had refused to go to the city's van that was waiting for them and that they had been told by police to go to would have been that they would have been arrested (as people generally are at protests if they disobey police instructions).

Do you have any reasons to believe that my analysis is incorrect?

Originally posted by no1marauder
From all that, plus the fact that the city reluctantly granted the permit and isolated the Phelps' from the funeral, I consider that the probable result if the demonstrators had refused to go to the city's van that was waiting for them and that they had been told by police to go to would have been that they would have been arrested (as people generally a ...[text shortened]... ce instructions).

Do you have any reasons to believe that my analysis is incorrect?

Gotcha. I now see what you're saying. I suspect you're correct.

Nemesio

Originally posted by no1marauder
You consider doing what the police order you to do as "accepting their protection"???? What do you think would have happened to them if they had refused to do what they were told? They would have been under "police protection" - in the local jail.

No, I consider following a police order to take shelter in a government vehicle from the wrath of a mob 'accepting police protection'.

If they had not done as they were told, I believe some of the bricks may have found their intended mark.