Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 03:07:43 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Children defy police in Washington, purchase lemonade at Capitol  (Read 3021 times)
hugolp
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742



View Profile
August 22, 2011, 12:37:15 PM
 #1

This people are not policeman, they are thugs.

Your taxdollars at work:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04MNf1YdNxI
1481382463
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481382463

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481382463
Reply with quote  #2

1481382463
Report to moderator
1481382463
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481382463

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481382463
Reply with quote  #2

1481382463
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481382463
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481382463

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481382463
Reply with quote  #2

1481382463
Report to moderator
1481382463
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481382463

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481382463
Reply with quote  #2

1481382463
Report to moderator
1481382463
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481382463

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481382463
Reply with quote  #2

1481382463
Report to moderator
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
August 22, 2011, 12:43:22 PM
 #2

Damn right.  If they are left set up stalls, they they will be left build shops there.

Is that what you want?

Anonymous
Guest

August 22, 2011, 12:45:30 PM
 #3

To be fair, I don't believe the public would prefer these area to be filled with vendors. If the land was privately owned, it would be a similar case. The arrests were excessive and certainly a waste of resources. The female officer was also unjustified in assaulting the person with the camera. However, selling lemonade on this property is justifiably unlawful but should be treated under more reasonable means.
hugolp
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742



View Profile
August 22, 2011, 12:55:58 PM
 #4

To be fair, I don't believe the public would prefer these area to be filled with vendors. If the land was privately owned, it would be a similar case. The arrests were excessive and certainly a waste of resources. The female officer was also unjustified in assaulting the person with the camera. However, selling lemonade on this property is justifiably unlawful but should be treated under more reasonable means.

Its an act of protests. Its civil disobedience.
Anonymous
Guest

August 22, 2011, 01:33:59 PM
 #5

To be fair, I don't believe the public would prefer these area to be filled with vendors. If the land was privately owned, it would be a similar case. The arrests were excessive and certainly a waste of resources. The female officer was also unjustified in assaulting the person with the camera. However, selling lemonade on this property is justifiably unlawful but should be treated under more reasonable means.

Its an act of protests. Its civil disobedience.
Protesting what? The will of property owners which in this case is the public? Now, you can protest the means that decide such rules but I believe it can be determined that its unanimous that people don't want these grounds flooded with solicitors.

I see no cause worth protesting. I could be in support of their cause if it included selling lemonade on your own property without a permit but the means used here don't address such ends.
hugolp
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742



View Profile
August 22, 2011, 01:35:32 PM
 #6

To be fair, I don't believe the public would prefer these area to be filled with vendors. If the land was privately owned, it would be a similar case. The arrests were excessive and certainly a waste of resources. The female officer was also unjustified in assaulting the person with the camera. However, selling lemonade on this property is justifiably unlawful but should be treated under more reasonable means.

Its an act of protests. Its civil disobedience.
Protesting what? The will of property owners which in this case is the public? Now, you can protest the means that decide such rules but I believe it can be determined that its unanimous that people don't want these grounds flooded with solicitors.

I see no cause worth protesting. I could be in support of their cause if it included selling lemonade on your own property without a permit but the means used here don't address such ends.

That it is ilegal to sell limonade without a license.
Anonymous
Guest

August 22, 2011, 01:37:28 PM
 #7

To be fair, I don't believe the public would prefer these area to be filled with vendors. If the land was privately owned, it would be a similar case. The arrests were excessive and certainly a waste of resources. The female officer was also unjustified in assaulting the person with the camera. However, selling lemonade on this property is justifiably unlawful but should be treated under more reasonable means.

Its an act of protests. Its civil disobedience.
Protesting what? The will of property owners which in this case is the public? Now, you can protest the means that decide such rules but I believe it can be determined that its unanimous that people don't want these grounds flooded with solicitors.

I see no cause worth protesting. I could be in support of their cause if it included selling lemonade on your own property without a permit but the means used here don't address such ends.

That it is ilegal to sell limonade without a license.
So they should go on private property they have a right to and sell it there.

The cause of free trade has never been about having a unilateral to sell it on whomever's property you may wish, last I checked.

You could go ahead and say it's an issue of public property in the first place but the cause of protest and issue at-hand have little relevance to how said property is mandated and provisioned. They need to be arguing for privatization in that case and not doing what they wish upon it. Hopefully they have the money to purchase the public lands they wish to sell lemonade on.
helloworld
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182


View Profile
August 22, 2011, 02:54:38 PM
 #8

Hopefully they have the money to purchase the public lands they wish to sell lemonade on.

They still wouldn't be allowed to do that without a 'lemonade-vending' license, which is what they are protesting about.

Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
August 22, 2011, 03:01:50 PM
 #9

Hopefully they have the money to purchase the public lands they wish to sell lemonade on.

They still wouldn't be allowed to do that without a 'lemonade-vending' license, which is what they are protesting about.

Correct.  Why should they have free use of the Capitol green areas?  If they can sell lemonade, can I set up a burger bar?  Or a hotel ?


FlipPro
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile WWW
August 22, 2011, 05:18:10 PM
 #10

They deserved to get arrested.

Although one small complaint I have is that they needed that many cops + a van to arrest a couple of kids.

Tweet For Coins http://uptweet.com
Gabi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050


View Profile
August 22, 2011, 06:16:07 PM
 #11

It's a protest, it's not "selling thing on capitol land", try to understand

I don't live in USA and i find that a bad thing, tons of police and these poor guys ARRESTED for some lemonade? Meh, they really have nothing better to do? Like uh, try to avoid a default or retake AAA rating or these things you know...
Didn't know you could be arrested for some lemonade, maybe a fine but arrested? Ridicolous.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
August 22, 2011, 06:31:47 PM
 #12

It's a protest, it's not "selling thing on capitol land", try to understand

I don't live in USA and i find that a bad thing, tons of police and these poor guys ARRESTED for some lemonade? Meh, they really have nothing better to do? Like uh, try to avoid a default or retake AAA rating or these things you know...
Didn't know you could be arrested for some lemonade, maybe a fine but arrested? Ridicolous.

If it helps, getting arrested is part of many protests.  You don't need to feel sorry for them as they went there fully intending to break the law and get arrested on camera.

They were politely asked to leave.  They refused.  So the police didn't have a choice; it was either forget about the law and allow everyone who feels like it open a shop on the public lands or arrest them.




Gabi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050


View Profile
August 22, 2011, 06:36:48 PM
 #13

The fact that they get arrested show us that protests are repressed, and that is a BAD thing.
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
August 22, 2011, 06:43:23 PM
 #14

The fact that they get arrested show us that protests are repressed, and that is a BAD thing.

No, it shows us that laws are enforced, as they should be.  They can protest all they want in a legal way.  Setting up a vending booth on public grounds without a permit is illegal, not a protest activity.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
August 22, 2011, 07:17:39 PM
 #15

The fact that they get arrested show us that protests are repressed, and that is a BAD thing.

The alternative is that anyone can go on your land, announce it's a protest and take it from you.  Would that be a GOOD thing?

dayfall
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 312



View Profile
August 22, 2011, 07:31:45 PM
 #16

They were politely asked to leave.  They refused.  So the police didn't have a choice; it was either forget about the law and allow everyone who feels like it open a shop on the public lands or arrest them.

The police did have a choice.  People don't have a choice when force is used.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
August 22, 2011, 08:14:26 PM
 #17

They were politely asked to leave.  They refused.  So the police didn't have a choice; it was either forget about the law and allow everyone who feels like it open a shop on the public lands or arrest them.

The police did have a choice.  People don't have a choice when force is used.

Did you not watch the video.  The protesters were breaking the law.  That was their choice.  If they don't like the law, they can agitate and get it changed. 

The police were doing their jobs.  Of course they could have resigned if it was a matter of conscience but apart from that "choice" they have to implement the law. 

trentzb
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406


View Profile
August 22, 2011, 08:27:31 PM
 #18

Out of curiosity, who believes that property is public property and who believes it is private property and why? I don't have a position or understanding that it is one or the other,  does anyone have evidence of one or the other?
dayfall
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 312



View Profile
August 22, 2011, 08:52:32 PM
 #19

Did you not watch the video.  The protesters were breaking the law.  That was their choice.  If they don't like the law, they can agitate and get it changed. 

Yes.
They sure were.
It sure was.
They sure agitated, alright.

The police were doing their jobs.  Of course they could have resigned if it was a matter of conscience but apart from that "choice" they have to implement the law. 

Does getting paid to do something remove your ability to make a choice?  At least we agree it was their choice to take the job.  And if the cops didn't make a choice, then who deiced to arrest these people?  I didn't see any lawmakers there.  Hey, what if i paid to protestors to do what they did?  Then no one would have a choice.  What a strange world that would be.

They wouldn't have to resign.  Now, they might get fired later, but if that is their reason then they were more like cowards.  Even cowards have a choice. 

Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
August 22, 2011, 09:02:49 PM
 #20

Out of curiosity, who believes that property is public property and who believes it is private property and why? I don't have a position or understanding that it is one or the other,  does anyone have evidence of one or the other?

I used work near the Capitol.  The green spaces there are mostly public property.

Did you not watch the video.  The protesters were breaking the law.  That was their choice.  If they don't like the law, they can agitate and get it changed. 

Yes.
They sure were.
It sure was.
They sure agitated, alright.

The police were doing their jobs.  Of course they could have resigned if it was a matter of conscience but apart from that "choice" they have to implement the law. 

Does getting paid to do something remove your ability to make a choice?  At least we agree it was their choice to take the job.  And if the cops didn't make a choice, then who deiced to arrest these people?  I didn't see any lawmakers there.  Hey, what if i paid to protestors to do what they did?  Then no one would have a choice.  What a strange world that would be.

They wouldn't have to resign.  Now, they might get fired later, but if that is their reason then they were more like cowards.  Even cowards have a choice. 



Um, the police did the right thing.  No reason why they would risk being fired for the sake of some greedy people who want to avoid paying for a permit.  Its not their land so they have no right to use it against the will of the owners.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!