Westboro Church Protest Mega-thread

[cphansen]

Thank you but I was referring only to the final destination.

The bridges over the Highway of Heroes do not need to be secured, since they are above and the only way they can be used to stop the convoy is to drop something. Which is definitely illegal and I suspect the perps would be held by the local people. The law could then be used to imprison the culprit.

I don't think it's a noble suggestion, but it is a fitting suggestion and would work well for a limited area around a graveyard and or church.

I do understand the point you're making but the scale of the operation needs to be a limited one. Hopefully we would do better here in Canada than down in the USA but I don't know.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Thank you but I was referring only to the final destination.

The bridges over the Highway of Heroes do not need to be secured, since they are above and the only way they can be used to stop the convoy is to drop something. Which is definitely illegal and I suspect the perps would be held by the local people. The law could then be used to imprison the culprit.

I don't think it's a noble suggestion, but it is a fitting suggestion and would work well for a limited area around a graveyard and or church.

I do understand the point you're making but the scale of the operation needs to be a limited one. Hopefully we would do better here in Canada than down in the USA but I don't know.

Unfortunately, Canadians have created gathering points before the final destination.

Your concept is very foreign, in that Soldiers that die are brought home and buried. 

Traditionally Canadians, from the British Tradition, have buried  the dead where they fell (WE know the history and the logistics behind that).  Now, we have adopted a new concept of bringing them home.  That being said, the troops are now being brought home to be prepared and buried in Canada.  "The Highway of heroes" has been created as the route these troops take.  I am only preaching to the choir, but you miss so many points in your feel good plan.

Every bridge is filled with well wishers, led by contingents of Legion members,  front line workers, and the general public.  This is prime area for the likes of people like the WBC.  So, with your theory, we must man all of these bridges, to protect the Family.

As I said, a noble concept, logistically impossible

dileas

tess

 

[OldSolduer]

Most of you know I've travelled the Highway of Heroes.

I can tell you these so called "Christians" of WBC wouldn't stand a chance on any of the 40-50 overpasses that are on that highway.

Guaranteed.

 

[Red Devil]

OK I can't resist putting in my simple 2c.

1. Anyone has the right to protest about anything.
2. The family and friends have a right to a peaceful funeral.
3. Insert common sense where the people of 1. are there to disrespect the people of 2.

The WBO turn up at these events only to irritate, disrupt and cause severe distress to the bereaved.
The police, therefore, acted in a way to prevent violence and protect the WBO. They served the greater good and protected the public.

JOB DONE.

Remember, your rights are a privilege. If you abuse them, then you should lose them. The WBO are lucky to have any rights as far as I'm concerned.

 

[cphansen]

Unfortunately, Canadians have created gathering points before the final destination.

Your concept is very foreign, in that Soldiers that die are brought home and buried. 

Traditionally Canadians, from the British Tradition, have buried  the dead where they fell (WE know the history and the logistics behind that).  Now, we have adopted a new concept of bringing them home.  That being said, the troops are now being brought home to be prepared and buried in Canada.  "The Highway of heroes" has been created as the route these troops take.  I am only preaching to the choir, but you miss so many points in your feel good plan.

Every bridge is filled with well wishers, led by contingents of Legion members,  front line workers, and the general public.  This is prime area for the likes of people like the WBC.  So, with your theory, we must man all of these bridges, to protect the Family.

As I said, a noble concept, logistically impossible

dileas

tess

I don't believe its unfortunate we have created these gathering points. I think it's a gesture of respect from the local communities and with the mix of people on the overpasses, any WBC types would standout and be handled by the local police. This is not the same situation as in the USA.

I respect the old tradition of burying the fallen in a little piece of ground that will forever be Canada, but I think it is much more comforting for the family to have the body closer and to be able to see how honoured the deceased is by their local community.

I know you feel it would be a logistical nightmare to establish a cordon but it only needs to be done locally where the funeral is actually taking place. There are only two places for each funeral that needs to be protected, the church where the funeral service would take pkace and the actual graveyard.

And establishing the perimeter would be handled by the local police, perhaps the RCMP and the local reserve unit

 

[Gimpy]

OK I can't resist putting in my simple 2c.

1. Anyone has the right to protest about anything.
2. The family and friends have a right to a peaceful funeral.

The first is enshrined in the First Amendment while the second has no basis in law, except for Arizona currently. Guess which one trumps the other in court?

The best way of dealing with the WBC was (and still is) accomplished by the Patriot Squad. Perhaps some type of public or private funding would improve their organizations ability to serve at these funerals.

 

[Red Devil]

The first is enshrined in the First Amendment while the second has no basis in law, except for Arizona currently. Guess which one trumps the other in court?

The best way of dealing with the WBC was (and still is) accomplished by the Patriot Squad. Perhaps some type of public or private funding would improve their organizations ability to serve at these funerals.

Whilst you may be legally correct, that brings me right on back to COMMON SENSE.

A right to respect at a funeral doesn't need to be a law. There are many things that you don't need to be told are right or wrong, if you employ a modicum of COMMON SENSE.

 

[Journeyman]

The best way of dealing with the WBC was (and still is) accomplished by the Patriot Squad.

I believe you may be referring to the Patriot Guard Riders.

 

[Gimpy]

I believe you may be referring to the Patriot Guard Riders.

Yeah, I had just looked them up upon first reading the topic since I had read some articles about them before and I still managed to screw up their name. Thanks for the correction though. (Not sarcasm).

 

[Journeyman]

No worries. I know of them from having crossed paths at several motorcycle rallies.
I support their work, and so I wear one of their crests on my biker vest; it's proven a pretty useful intro when riding in the States.

 

[Fatalize]

Seems like a great way of dealing with them to me.

 

[mariomike]

I respect the old tradition of burying the fallen in a little piece of ground that will forever be Canada, but I think it is much more comforting for the family to have the body closer and to be able to see how honoured the deceased is by their local community.

Allied forces were not present at many of the burials, as the towns were under German occupation.
After the Liberation of Paris, the RCAF sent the seven families photos of the funeral taken by the local people.
It was a seven-man Lancaster crew all KIA. The Canadian mothers got to know and comfort each other through correspondence because for months the crew was listed as MIA.
The flags are for the two RAF and five RCAF airmen. They are the only Allied war graves in the cemetery.
Even if it had been offerred then or now, my family would never agree to repatriation back to Canada, or exhumation to a big military cemetery in Europe.

Edit spelling.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Seems like a great way of dealing with them to me.

So is a cricket bat to the kneecaps.

 

[gcclarke]

Whilst you may be legally correct, that brings me right on back to COMMON SENSE.

A right to respect at a funeral doesn't need to be a law. There are many things that you don't need to be told are right or wrong, if you employ a modicum of COMMON SENSE.

I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way. The local police don't get to pick what is "common sense". They don't get to choose what laws they'd like to ignore, or which rights it makes "sense" to suspend. The only ones who get to do that are the duly elected representatives of the people, keeping in mind whether or not any such law would survive a constitutional challenge. After all, isn't it often "common sense" to not bother getting a warrant to search the homes of known drug dealers?

 

[Kat Stevens]

So you're not okay with, say, getting pulled over by a cop for obviously speeding or some other clear offence, and getting off with a warning?  Because, after all, that's a LEO not sticking to to the letter of the law.  You offend, you get a ticket/fine/demerits, that's the law, no grey area.  I'd say the cops showed some creativity in preventing an ugly scene, and at the end of the day, everyone went home in one piece.  No blood, no foul.

 

[Container]

that discretion is supported by law. A police officer may choose- thats supported by court. Creative detention isnt.

I see what you're saying but in legal terms the comparison doesn't really work. Both have been addressed by case law.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way. The local police don't get to pick what is "common sense". They don't get to choose what laws they'd like to ignore, or which rights it makes "sense" to suspend. The only ones who get to do that are the duly elected representatives of the people, keeping in mind whether or not any such law would survive a constitutional challenge. After all, isn't it often "common sense" to not bother getting a warrant to search the homes of known drug dealers?

Bollocks.  It's called "officer's discretion"  There are many times you look the other way, bend the rules etc etc.  As I have said before, there is an old saying "the law is a wise man's guide and a fool's bible".  I did not bone everyone I caught committing an offense every time.  There is a time and place for everything.  The gravity of the offense, history of the offender, circumstance etc all came into play.  Now, that is not to say that every day was "let's make a deal" either.  But the only ones who go by the letter of the law, all the time, are Rookies or knobs.  When I was a Rook I was more inflexible, however, some TI, seasoning and CDF smoothed the service delivery. 
As for your last comment....  that is complete and utter stupidity.  Hollywood BS.  It's common sense to make sure you cover all the bases during the full cycle of a warrant and do the job correctly.  The job is hard enough as it is with the deck loaded in the offender's favor more and more.  If you are going after a known dealer as per your example you don't want it all to go to crap with the Crown, or at trial because you cut corners or were sloppy.

Container, you posted while I was typing.  Agreed, with creative detention.  There is a suggestion that may be the case here,  but it is not cut and dried either.  If they take the risk and do so then they also take the risk with these bunch of lawyers who make their living in court from those who do oppose them.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

  If they take the risk and do so then they also take the risk with these bunch of lawyers who make their living in court from those who do oppose them.

I agree. The authorities know that these guys are all lawyers that make their living on rights litigation against people that oppose them. Knowing that, I'm pretty sure the police knew exactly what they were doing and stayed within the bounds of their own laws.

 

[cphansen]

Allied forces were not present at many of the burials, as the towns were under German occupation.
After the Liberation of Paris, the RCAF sent the seven families photos of the funeral taken by the local people.
It was a seven-man Lancaster crew all KIA. The Canadian mothers got to know and comfort each other through correspondence because for months the crew was listed as MIA.
The flags are for the two RAF and five RCAF airmen. They are the only Allied war graves in the cemetery.
Even if it had been offerred then or now, my family would never agree to repatriation back to Canada, or exhumation to a big military cemetery in Europe.

Edit spelling.

With all respect, there is a big difference between what went on in WWII and today.

I think what the town did for those airmen and their families was done out of respect and understanding. The villagers were subject to bombing and German occupation and still they showed their caring.

I really doubt that our casualties in Afg would be treated with the same compassion, it's a different war and a different attitude. 

 

[gcclarke]

Bollocks.  It's called "officer's discretion"  There are many times you look the other way, bend the rules etc etc.  As I have said before, there is an old saying "the law is a wise man's guide and a fool's bible".  I did not bone everyone I caught committing an offense every time.  There is a time and place for everything.  The gravity of the offense, history of the offender, circumstance etc all came into play.  Now, that is not to say that every day was "let's make a deal" either.  But the only ones who go by the letter of the law, all the time, are Rookies or knobs.  When I was a Rook I was more inflexible, however, some TI, seasoning and CDF smoothed the service delivery. 
As for your last comment....  that is complete and utter stupidity.  Hollywood BS.  It's common sense to make sure you cover all the bases during the full cycle of a warrant and do the job correctly.  The job is hard enough as it is with the deck loaded in the offender's favor more and more.  If you are going after a known dealer as per your example you don't want it all to go to crap with the Crown, or at trial because you cut corners or were sloppy.

Container, you posted while I was typing.  Agreed, with creative detention.  There is a suggestion that may be the case here,  but it is not cut and dried either.  If they take the risk and do so then they also take the risk with these bunch of lawyers who make their living in court from those who do oppose them.

Allow me to clarify further. I am always utterly opposed to people in positions of authority using said authority, outside or the law or relevant regulations etc, against someone else. Every example you stated was about cutting someone slack because you can judge that they deserve it. That's fairly reasonable. What would be unreasonable would be to bust someone for something that they didn't do, because they probably deserved it. Or, in this case, "bring someone in for questioning" just because you don't want them to be able to exercise their legal right to protest peaceably. Of course, just because these are despicable human beings, everyone here seems to want to jump on the bandwagon of denying them their human rights.

Personally, I think that's despicable in and of itself. Change the scenario to someone else, shall we? A man has an event he wants to attend, an interview for his dream job. But his ex-wife is a cop, and hears about the interview. She decides it would be a good idea to "bring him in" for some questioning during the interview. He misses it, and when the would be employer hears it was because he was being interrogated by the police, decides not to re-schedule the interview. Is what went on in Brandon MS any more or any less defensible than this? It's the same action after all.

So yeah. Bending the law like this is not, in my opinion, acceptable. "Creative detainment" is no better than "Creative accounting" or "Creative interpenetration of Rules of Engagement". I hold people in roles of authority to a higher standard of conduct, and these police officers have failed to achieve it. That department deserves every penny of the lawsuit they're going to invariably lose over this.