As I mentioned in another thread; small southern cities/towns aren't gonna ....

j4au_1

First Round Draft Pick
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
17,893
13,004
113
play around, and Huntsville is a prime example.

As I mentioned before. Don't bring that shit down here in the south. Cities other than Atl/Bham etc ain't gonna play. The police here WILL NOT allow this BS to get out of hand. Will not. If the other cities had done the same, these spreading riots and violence would have stopped a long time ago.

The "protest organizers" met with police and city officials. They were given a place and a time to protest. They were told when the time was up, everyone had to leave. The organizers areed. The protest itself WAS peaceful. It's when it was"officially" over, and everyone told to leave, that shit started going bad. The only people that remained were people looking to start crap. Otherwise they would have left as instructed. The police did exactly what they were supposed to do to protect our beautiful city. We don't have thousands of cops. If a huge crowd built up and damage and violence broke out, they would be overwhelmed. Not gonna let that happen. Shouldn't let that happen anywhere, but the libs controlling the big cities don't agree.
 

CowardlyToaster

<REDACTED>
Gold Member
Dec 9, 2012
26,243
70,363
113
Auburn, MI
www.peta.org
I get your point, but there’s still something unsettling about having to meet with officials to be “approved” to protest and they set the time and location. Almost defeats the purpose of protesting.
People should just go protest peacefully wherever they want. The optics of getting runnoft by police or whoever would do more for their cause than the actual protesting itself.
 

DavistonTiger

First Round Draft Pick
Gold Member
Feb 18, 2015
17,107
31,901
113
I get your point, but there’s still something unsettling about having to meet with officials to be “approved” to protest and they set the time and location. Almost defeats the purpose of protesting.
That's how all protest should be. Everyone else's lives shouldn't be effect by protest. If you want to protest go for it but we still have lives to live and businesses to run.
 

Hornacious

MINISTER OF BRACKETS
Gold Member
Nov 28, 2010
35,818
48,906
113
I get your point, but there’s still something unsettling about having to meet with officials to be “approved” to protest and they set the time and location. Almost defeats the purpose of protesting.
You can blame the protesters. For a week the protesters allowed bad actors to hide amongst them while watching them and cheering them on as they destroyed cities. The protesters shouldn't have allowed that to happen but they did. All HPD had to rely on to create a response was previous actions of protesters around this country.
 
Last edited:

kenews

First Round Draft Pick
Gold Member
Jun 15, 2001
13,967
10,759
113
I get your point, but there’s still something unsettling about having to meet with officials to be “approved” to protest and they set the time and location. Almost defeats the purpose of protesting.
No but it narrows the purpose of protesting. If you truthfully believe that all of your elected officials in charge are allowing racism exists it is war. You have to protest outside of the parameters that are given because you are going to use force if necessary to make the change.

If not and you believe that there is not systemic racism in your district you need to just do what you do on a message board. Hell Tate deletes stuff here all day long and we are okay because we do not think he has to be overthrown. So we post withing the limits. Voice will be heard and then we can see if action is required.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AU ID 2013

j4au_1

First Round Draft Pick
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
17,893
13,004
113
I get your point, but there’s still something unsettling about having to meet with officials to be “approved” to protest and they set the time and location. Almost defeats the purpose of protesting.
Uhm, people normally ALWAYS have to get an actual permit to protest. In every city. An impromptu gathering of hundreds of people is nearly always a bad sign that bad things are gonna happen.
 

DantheMan43

All-American
Gold Member
May 17, 2013
801
1,752
93
I get your point, but there’s still something unsettling about having to meet with officials to be “approved” to protest and they set the time and location. Almost defeats the purpose of protesting.
Not really, still getting your point across but letting city officials know that you mean well and would like it to remain peaceful
 
  • Like
Reactions: j4au_1

BAW02

All-American
Gold Member
Jul 15, 2002
6,434
3,330
113
I get your point, but there’s still something unsettling about having to meet with officials to be “approved” to protest and they set the time and location. Almost defeats the purpose of protesting.
How? Are Riots and Protests the same thing? Officials and Police are responsible for the protection of the people and property of the communities they serve. They live in them too. There is a set of data that suggests the overwhelming probability that these peaceful protests become violent riots at some point, generally after dark. Should they just ignore that?

“I know where cops but you’re own your own here because it’s more important to not be called racists by agenda driven charlatans than it is to do the job... “

The police want the same thing as the protesters, they are people too, and like most of the rest of us they are horrified by what is happening to our cities and towns. If BLM or whoever truly wants recognition of problems and spark for real change in policing tactics and abuses... How does that happen without a conversation?
 

Big Blue

FIRM BUT FAIR
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
43,205
53,972
113
119
I get your point, but there’s still something unsettling about having to meet with officials to be “approved” to protest and they set the time and location. Almost defeats the purpose of protesting.
The right to protest is not unlimited and unrestricted, is it? In principle, that would be great, but in practice it is unworkable. If, for example, protestors shut down multiple interstate highways, is that just exercising their rights under the constitution? Even hard core libertarians generally recognize that one person’s right end where those of another person begin.

Of course, the protests in HSV last night weren’t shutting down interstates, but the way things have been going in other cities recently, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to have some time/location limits on protests. When protestors start violating those limits, to which apparently they had agreed in advance, it should not be surprising when police act. Protest peacefully and go home and things are much smoother for everyone.

FWIW, peaceful protesting is pretty common in Huntsville. For a long time, people peacefully protesting (usually anti-war stuff) at the corner of Whitesburg and Airport were a very common sight on Saturdays, sometimes with opposing groups on opposites street corners. Even if folks there were holding signs which I found objectionable, I’d tend to give a honk, smile, and a wave. America in action.
 

LeotheTiger

All-American
Gold Member
Jan 15, 2015
1,534
2,053
113
How? Are Riots and Protests the same thing? Officials and Police are responsible for the protection of the people and property of the communities they serve. They live in them too. There is a set of data that suggests the overwhelming probability that these peaceful protests become violent riots at some point, generally after dark. Should they just ignore that?

“I know where cops but you’re own your own here because it’s more important to not be called racists by agenda driven charlatans than it is to do the job... “

The police want the same thing as the protesters, they are people too, and like most of the rest of us they are horrified by what is happening to our cities and towns. If BLM or whoever truly wants recognition of problems and spark for real change in policing tactics and abuses... How does that happen without a conversation?

Well aware. Been in law enforcement my entire adult life.

My point is simply this, if there is a huge issue that needs addressing, such as systemic racism, and a core point is that “the system” doesn’t work for everyone and that system is essentially the government, BUT you have to arrange with that government on when and how to get your point across?

Comparing protestors to looters is an absurd argument to dismiss the validity of the protest. Protest are only effective if peaceful, in my opinion, so anyone condoning violence or destruction of property are only setting back the very cause they’re fighting for.

The good news is cities and officials are not only arranging these protests but agreeing with or joining in because they agree with the premise of the protest. The point of the original post I made was, what happens if one day the government doesn’t agree with the protest issue and we, as citizens, have to appeal to them for permission to protest.
 

LeotheTiger

All-American
Gold Member
Jan 15, 2015
1,534
2,053
113
That's how all protest should be. Everyone else's lives shouldn't be effect by protest. If you want to protest go for it but we still have lives to live and businesses to run.
I disagree with you, respectfully. If there is an issue so large that thousands and thousands of Americans feel the need to take the streets because they aren’t being heard or issues aren’t being resolved then the point becomes effecting the lives of those you are appealing too. I’m not saying harm people or destroy property, but a protest is a visual tool of peaceful unrest.
 

DavistonTiger

First Round Draft Pick
Gold Member
Feb 18, 2015
17,107
31,901
113
I disagree with you, respectfully. If there is an issue so large that thousands and thousands of Americans feel the need to take the streets because they aren’t being heard or issues aren’t being resolved then the point becomes effecting the lives of those you are appealing too. I’m not saying harm people or destroy property, but a protest is a visual tool of peaceful unrest.
But that's not how protest work in the USA.. you can protest on common areas all you like but you cant block streets or side walks any where with a permit, not just Huntsville.

So it's ok for a bunch of white nationalist to block streets for days at a time because they want to be heard? That's non sense.
 

WirelessDamnEngineer85

First Round Draft Pick
Gold Member
Dec 12, 2011
25,923
51,883
113
Uhm, people normally ALWAYS have to get an actual permit to protest. In every city. An impromptu gathering of hundreds of people is nearly always a bad sign that bad things are gonna happen.
You don't need a permit to assemble if you're not blocking a right of way. Learn the Constitution, lib.
 

WirelessDamnEngineer85

First Round Draft Pick
Gold Member
Dec 12, 2011
25,923
51,883
113
Of course, the protests in HSV last night weren’t shutting down interstates, but the way things have been going in other cities recently, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to have some time/location limits on protests.
Unless they're blocking streets, sidewalks, etc, they have a right to assemble absent a curfew (which may be unconstitutional as well.)

As far as civil liberties go, the curfew is probably more illegal than the tear gassing. Curfews prevent the kind of imagery that fuels the anti-cop movement, but cities and counties are collectively rolling the dice on whether their curfews are actually legal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Big Blue

papaskinz

First Round Draft Pick
Gold Member
Aug 13, 2010
14,814
13,789
113
I am all for peaceful protest unless they come to my place, all bets are off at that point.
 

Big Blue

FIRM BUT FAIR
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
43,205
53,972
113
119
Unless they're blocking streets, sidewalks, etc, they have a right to assemble absent a curfew (which may be unconstitutional as well.)

As far as civil liberties go, the curfew is probably more illegal than the tear gassing. Curfews prevent the kind of imagery that fuels the anti-cop movement, but cities and counties are collectively rolling the dice on whether their curfews are actually legal.
My gut agrees with this. I lean towards error on the side of more liberty, e.g. more right to protest, no curfew, etc. However, I am not sure that this is correct as a practical matter or even if the courts see it that way. I am guessing that curfews have been tested at the SCOTUS and been found to be legal in certain circumstances.