General Forums >> General Discussions >> Poll: Protesters at Funerals of Military and Law Enforcement

+3

Poll: Protesters at Funerals of Military and Law Enforcement

3,564 Views
124 Replies Flag as inappropriate

Poll: Is it unconstitional to prohibit the protesting at LEO'S And Military Funerals

Pool___potty_pics019_max50

22 posts

back to top

Posted almost 4 years ago

 

I think these folks are missing the point that if it was not for the Military and Law Enforcement they would probabley have been dealt with more severely by now. These types of people just demonstrate how religion and religious beliefs can get out of control. They have lost site of compassion for others in there time of grief.

-67 posts

back to top
+8

Rated +8 | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

Before anyone starts going off about "who said yes!!!!" while sucking in a big gasp of oxygen and sticking their chest out, I said yes. And I stand by it. Do I like it? No...Im a Soldier with 2 tours in Iraq and a police officer. Do I think it should be "unconstitutional" no.....why would it be? Because I personally dont like it and think its disrespectful? Thats just not good enough to be unconstitutional. I agree with the law as it is here in Texas regarding such things.....a certain distance away from the funeral..violate of that distance constitutes a lawful arrest.


If anything, WE THE PEOPLE should feel compelled to drown out the protests with support like various patriot groups such as the Freedom Riders do.

-44 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

PSD_Team_Leader says ...



Before anyone starts going off about "who said yes!!!!" while sucking in a big gasp of oxygen and sticking their chest out, I said yes. And I stand by it. Do I like it? No...Im a Soldier with 2 tours in Iraq and a police officer. Do I think it should be "unconstitutional" no.....why would it be? Because I personally dont like it and think its disrespectful? Thats just not good enough to be unconstitutional. I agree with the law as it is here in Texas regarding such things.....a certain distance away from the funeral..violate of that distance constitutes a lawful arrest.


If anything, WE THE PEOPLE should feel compelled to drown out the protests with support like various patriot groups such as the Freedom Riders do.



BUMP!

-191 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

Clearly this thread ties in with this one: http://policelink.monster.com/topics/77900-todays-the-day-10062010/posts And as for voting 'yes' i did vote yes but feel restrictions should be places on the protestors, such as far away and no media circus.  If protestors violate an established standard, they should be liable for damages.  It's not that they can't protest, but they should suffer the consequences of 'over zealous' protesting.

-451 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

i always thought the constitution protected human dignity. I guess it really doesnt. Since when is the right to hate speech so important? I really feel there is no hope for this country if the supreme court upholds Phelps.  And you know what really upsets me? Every other "true American" sits back and lets all this happen. We are a nation of sheep. Whatever happens to us, happens. sad sad sad

Vpsomourningband_max50

5174 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

I agree with you rickm.  Our nation is made up of more sheep than shepherds and wolves.  I'm gonna stop before I start in on the so called christians who've lost sight of Christianity and crossed over into the twilight zone.


Photobucket

~I wondered why somebody didn't do something, then I realized I was somebody. ~ unknown

Sg_max50

1626 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

At the very best, I think they have their right to assemble; when and where and how are the limiting factors. Not during the funeral IMO, but especially not within earshot or sight of the funeral location or burial sight and not loud enough for those mourning to be able to hear the protesting. If protesters expressing their first amendment rights impede my same right, that is unconstitutional. JMO.

1979_max50

3260 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

Yes people do have the right to protest, I agree with that. However even though I support the right of people to protest I believe with all my heart that our forefathers would agree that there are certain types of actions that while being claimed as legal protests, are so vile in nature and in humanity that they are tantamount to violations of human dignity and thereby the pursuit of happiness. I do not take that literally in that you cannot make it illegal to stop someone from being happy, but by destroying ones ability to mourn the passing of a relative or community hero interferes with or sense of justice and proper behaviour towards our fellow man. Just like free speech does not allow one to yell fire in a crowded theater, one should not be allowed to attack others basic emotion of grief. If necessary make a specific amendment forbidding others from interfering with the right to a peaceful and respectful internment of the dead.

Sg_max50

1626 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

Robocop33 says ...



Yes people do have the right to protest, I agree with that. However even though I support the right of people to protest I believe with all my heart that our forefathers would agree that there are certain types of actions that while being claimed as legal protests, are so vile in nature and in humanity that they are tantamount to violations of human dignity and thereby the pursuit of happiness. I do not take that literally in that you cannot make it illegal to stop someone from being happy, but by destroying ones ability to mourn the passing of a relative or community hero interferes with or sense of justice and proper behaviour towards our fellow man. Just like free speech does not allow one to yell fire in a crowded theater, one should not be allowed to attack others basic emotion of grief. If necessary make a specific amendment forbidding others from interfering with the right to a peaceful and respectful internment of the dead.



Yes, this^^^^^^^^

Silver_warrior_max50

1463 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

While I am no Phelps follower. . . .and if it were up to me, if he passed today. . . .I would not shed a tear.  With that said, the Constitution was very clear in the first Amendment:  "Congress shall make no law. . . ."  If a law came down that said one could not spew hate speech. . . .WHO DETERMINES WHAT HATE SPEECH IS?  You?  Me?  Some right wing fanatic?  Some Left wing fanatic?  Some religious fanatic?  What was the saying?  One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter?


Say they find a level headed person to determine what hate speech is that everyone can agree on (except Mr. Phelps and his gang). . . .what happens when this person moves on?  Do we THEN end up with a fanatic at that point?  Or is it the person after that one?


The Supreme Court is in the trick bag on this one and I don't envy their decision on just how to split the baby.


I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them.

John Bernard Books, from "The Shootist"

-44 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

I am not a fan of those goons who have the audacity to refer to themselves as a "church". There is a special place in hell for each and every one of them. However, when I joined the Military, I took a vow to defend my THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA against ALL ENEMIES foreign and DOMESTIC. Just because I'm no longer in the Military does not mean that vow expired. It is the right of these people (and I use that term loosely) to protest if they like. However, if the Supreme court makes it unlawful, and they do it again, I know a ton of LEO's that will sing a merry tune while hauling all of their collective asses to jail. Meanwhile, I know someone out there is keeping tabs on the phelps crew, and when one of them dies, I'll take vacation to make a special trip to protest at their funeral.

-191 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

If i decided to make a sign that said "Assiniate Obama now, Change we need" and went to protest at the white house, do you think there would be any fallout, or would i get well acquainted with the Secret Service personnel, there are clearly cases where 'freedom' of speech goes to far, or how about yelling 'He's got a knife/gun/box cutter and point to a mid-eastern passenger on a plane.

-451 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

bump casso, my point exactly. Freedom of speech doesnt mean abuse of speech. I rank Westboro right with Al Qaeda. I dont think pedophiles deserve the protection of the constitution, Osama bin Laden or the Westboro church. Call me reactionary, but some people just dont deserve the protection a civilized society offers.

Newpatch_sq90_max50

6009 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

I feel the family has a right to grieve the death of a loved one with out some puke expressing his right of free speech.


Photobucket
In Memory of the Fallen Officers

MODERATOR 3

Jpd_new_max50

1893 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

JIMROC says ...



I feel the family has a right to grieve the death of a loved one with out some puke expressing his right of free speech.



Bump


"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
George Orwell

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
― Sun Tzu

PL Mentoring Team Member

-451 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

bump


 

1979_max50

3260 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

msp1672 says ...



While I am no Phelps follower. . . .and if it were up to me, if he passed today. . . .I would not shed a tear.  With that said, the Constitution was very clear in the first Amendment:  "Congress shall make no law. . . ."  If a law came down that said one could not spew hate speech. . . .WHO DETERMINES WHAT HATE SPEECH IS?  You?  Me?  Some right wing fanatic?  Some Left wing fanatic?  Some religious fanatic?  What was the saying?  One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter?


Say they find a level headed person to determine what hate speech is that everyone can agree on (except Mr. Phelps and his gang). . . .what happens when this person moves on?  Do we THEN end up with a fanatic at that point?  Or is it the person after that one?


The Supreme Court is in the trick bag on this one and I don't envy their decision on just how to split the baby.



You just woke me up to something that is right in front of us. "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW>>>>". Hey, Congress isn't making the law stating you cannot stage a protest at a funeral, The State or County or City is making that law, ergo, no violation of the Constitution. That is unlike the Second Amendment which start that the rights of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. See the difference? One says that CONGRESS shall make no law and the other says no law shall be made!

Silver_warrior_max50

1463 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

Robocop33 says ...



msp1672 says ...



While I am no Phelps follower. . . .and if it were up to me, if he passed today. . . .I would not shed a tear.  With that said, the Constitution was very clear in the first Amendment:  "Congress shall make no law. . . ."  If a law came down that said one could not spew hate speech. . . .WHO DETERMINES WHAT HATE SPEECH IS?  You?  Me?  Some right wing fanatic?  Some Left wing fanatic?  Some religious fanatic?  What was the saying?  One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter?


Say they find a level headed person to determine what hate speech is that everyone can agree on (except Mr. Phelps and his gang). . . .what happens when this person moves on?  Do we THEN end up with a fanatic at that point?  Or is it the person after that one?


The Supreme Court is in the trick bag on this one and I don't envy their decision on just how to split the baby.



You just woke me up to something that is right in front of us. "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW>>>>". Hey, Congress isn't making the law stating you cannot stage a protest at a funeral, The State or County or City is making that law, ergo, no violation of the Constitution. That is unlike the Second Amendment which start that the rights of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. See the difference? One says that CONGRESS shall make no law and the other says no law shall be made!



Nice try.  If it is up to the states to decide their own laws, then why is the Supreme Court hearing it?  If it is a state law. . . .how did it end up in a Federal Court in the first place?  It is there because the Constitution trumps States rights with the Freedom of Speech. . . . .along with the religion and peaceable assembly. . . . .among the other issues found throughout the amendments as dictated by the 10th Amendment.


If this were so, why is it that the Supreme Court orders the states to make some sort of allowance for the KKK to spread their vile filth.  If memory serves (and I am a little fuzzy on the exact details), the chosen locality obviously has to allow the KKK to have their little wing ding recruitment day but they (the KKK) have to pay for the overtime or (in essence) the proper staffing of law enforcement to "Keep the Peace".  Once the locality's government is involved, they (the government) can dictate the location, arrangement and use of the area (i.e. stages/containment fences/parking/etc. . .), length of wing ding, etc. . . . .  The speech is not prohibited but "controlled" for the public safety and to make sure that by the standard of the Constitution, the Assembly is Peaceable.


I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them.

John Bernard Books, from "The Shootist"

-191 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

msp1672 says ...



Robocop33 says ...



msp1672 says ...



While I am no Phelps follower. . . .and if it were up to me, if he passed today. . . .I would not shed a tear.  With that said, the Constitution was very clear in the first Amendment:  "Congress shall make no law. . . ."  If a law came down that said one could not spew hate speech. . . .WHO DETERMINES WHAT HATE SPEECH IS?  You?  Me?  Some right wing fanatic?  Some Left wing fanatic?  Some religious fanatic?  What was the saying?  One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter?


Say they find a level headed person to determine what hate speech is that everyone can agree on (except Mr. Phelps and his gang). . . .what happens when this person moves on?  Do we THEN end up with a fanatic at that point?  Or is it the person after that one?


The Supreme Court is in the trick bag on this one and I don't envy their decision on just how to split the baby.



You just woke me up to something that is right in front of us. "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW>>>>". Hey, Congress isn't making the law stating you cannot stage a protest at a funeral, The State or County or City is making that law, ergo, no violation of the Constitution. That is unlike the Second Amendment which start that the rights of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. See the difference? One says that CONGRESS shall make no law and the other says no law shall be made!



Nice try.  If it is up to the states to decide their own laws, then why is the Supreme Court hearing it?  If it is a state law. . . .how did it end up in a Federal Court in the first place?  It is there because the Constitution trumps States rights with the Freedom of Speech. . . . .along with the religion and peaceable assembly. . . . .among the other issues found throughout the amendments as dictated by the 10th Amendment.


If this were so, why is it that the Supreme Court orders the states to make some sort of allowance for the KKK to spread their vile filth.  If memory serves (and I am a little fuzzy on the exact details), the chosen locality obviously has to allow the KKK to have their little wing ding recruitment day but they (the KKK) have to pay for the overtime or (in essence) the proper staffing of law enforcement to "Keep the Peace".  Once the locality's government is involved, they (the government) can dictate the location, arrangement and use of the area (i.e. stages/containment fences/parking/etc. . .), length of wing ding, etc. . . . .  The speech is not prohibited but "controlled" for the public safety and to make sure that by the standard of the Constitution, the Assembly is Peaceable.



This case is not about violation of a state statue on portesters, but about (I think) a federal civil rights violation (mental anguish and suffering from the protest), a whole another kettle of fish.  Heard on the news today the the surpreme court is leaning towards the father's side in this case, but may be months before a decision.  Of course, this is just what the media reported.

19jyucm2tzgez_max50

30 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

Casscocop says ...



If i decided to make a sign that said "Assiniate Obama now, Change we need" and went to protest at the white house, do you think there would be any fallout, or would i get well acquainted with the Secret Service personnel, there are clearly cases where 'freedom' of speech goes to far, or how about yelling 'He's got a knife/gun/box cutter and point to a mid-eastern passenger on a plane.



I am sure the United states Secret Service would respect your rights to freedom of speech, as much they would respect your rights to free pyschological evaluation!

19jyucm2tzgez_max50

30 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

 


I said this in another post and I will say it again
The book of Mathew chapter 7 verses 21-23 states not everyone who calls out to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter. 22On judgment day many will say to me, ‘Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.’ 23But I will reply, ‘I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God’s laws.’
I don’t know what “Christian God” those inbreed buffoons associated with the Westboro Baptist Church are worshiping but it is not the God of the Christian bible. The God I believe in and worship would not take joy in watching the families of a dead military member or police officer suffer. While, I personally find the actions of Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church offensive and in poor taste. I think if we are too declare protesting at police and military funerals unconstitutional, we are doing a great disservice to the men and woman who fought and died for our freedoms, including the freedom of speech, let Phelps and his goon squad have their 15 minutes of fame, Phelps and his goons will go from being covered on the nightly news by some national news group like fox or cnn, to a two sentence article in some paper on page five or six, before disappearing from the public memory.

-191 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

vegas94 says ...



 


I said this in another post and I will say it again
The book of Mathew chapter 7 verses 21-23 states not everyone who calls out to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter. 22On judgment day many will say to me, ‘Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.’ 23But I will reply, ‘I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God’s laws.’
I don’t know what “Christian God” those inbreed buffoons associated with the Westboro Baptist Church are worshiping but it is not the God of the Christian bible. The God I believe in and worship would not take joy in watching the families of a dead military member or police officer suffer. While, I personally find the actions of Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church offensive and in poor taste. I think if we are too declare protesting at police and military funerals unconstitutional, we are doing a great disservice to the men and woman who fought and died for our freedoms, including the freedom of speech, let Phelps and his goon squad have their 15 minutes of fame, Phelps and his goons will go from being covered on the nightly news by some national news group like fox or cnn, to a two sentence article in some paper on page five or six, before disappearing from the public memory.

Don't know what Christian God the Phelps crowd used, every biblical quote they use to justify their stance comes from the old testament, nothng from the new testament, so they apparently believe in a pre-Christian God.

Silver_warrior_max50

1463 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

Noooo. . . .they have carefully chosen the passages that they wish to use for their vile purposes.  Unfortunately, by them having taken the passages out of the context of which they were originally in, the entire meaning has been altered.  No difference than the Muslim extremists taking specific passages out of their Qu'ran, but taking them in such away that the originaly meaning has been lost due to the loss of context that the original passage was in.


I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them.

John Bernard Books, from "The Shootist"

Target_practice_max50

56 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

I'm reminded of a saying that I heard in one literature class, that said something like "the word destroys what the spirit creates".  The difficult task of defining an new idea with words that may not fit because those are all we have, is the key problem in interpreting the constitution or any other writing.  I believe that people have the right to free speech, but speech in spirit to me means expression, of opinions, feelings, and ideas, not simple vocalization.  It was intended to prevent people from being persecuted and oppressed for being of a different opinion than those in power.  It doesn't give people the right to in turn oppress and deny anyone their right to freely practice religion and express their emotions.  If they want to use their free speech, go right a book, start a radio show, try to get on tv to say what you want to.  This way people have a choice to either listen or not.  Invading someone's funeral, no matter who, and forcing the mourners to listen to your beratements is definatley wrong and should be illegal IMO.   Your rights only go as far as your neighbor's, once you infringe on someone else's rights, you're no longer within yours.

Walther_ppk_pic_max600_max50

993 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

 


 


American Citizens have a right to free speech.


I don't see where 'everyone' gets to be expressing this right.... at the same place... at the same time.


Sight and Sound Separation... for opposing viewpoints..... has my vote.

-451 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

if they want to protest they can take their protest to the Washington Monument or lIncoln Memorial or white house blah blah and leave the vets in their funerals alone. No one is saying they cant protest, they just cant protest their. And the constitution shouldnt get in the way of human dignity, like I said before I thought the constitution was meant ot uphold dignity not curtail it

Silver_warrior_max50

1463 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

KRG123 says ...



 


 


American Citizens have a right to free speech.


I don't see where 'everyone' gets to be expressing this right.... at the same place... at the same time.


Sight and Sound Separation... for opposing viewpoints..... has my vote.



While I understand what you are trying to say here. . . . . .the meaning comes across as stifling free and open debate.  Sight and sound separation for opposing viewpoints can be taken several ways and one would definitely effect our election process by keeping the "contestants" apart and not able to "question" or point out the opposing viewpoints of the other party.  While I know that you are probably going to come back with something along the lines of, "Well, that would be a caveat in the law.", just remember that "Freedom of Religion" was a caveat in the 1st Amendment and has turned into 'Freedom FROM Religion".  All it takes are some slick lawyers to flip that meaning to something else entirely.


I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them.

John Bernard Books, from "The Shootist"

-191 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

rickm says ...



if they want to protest they can take their protest to the Washington Monument or lIncoln Memorial or white house blah blah and leave the vets in their funerals alone. No one is saying they cant protest, they just cant protest their. And the constitution shouldnt get in the way of human dignity, like I said before I thought the constitution was meant ot uphold dignity not curtail it



When the Westboro church went to Washington DC they were ignored by the media, if you banned the media from soldiers funerals, the Westbobo people would probably quit going too.  Remember 2 years ago when Westboro destroyed a Qu'ran on 09/11/2008?  You don't, probably because they go no media coverage, and didn't try the same thing in 2009, probably for that reason.

-451 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

casso is up early, thats fine westboro should be ignored, without any press, they will simply go away. Which is good.

My_kids_027_max50

36 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

I have to say that this is a tender subject to me. I have been to several military and police funerals and so far there has not been any protesters at any of them. I really don't know how I would react to this, I have been in law enforcement for several years and have more than due respect for all of our military personnel.  It would probably be hard for me to keep level headed when dealing with someone that would purposely interrupt a families time of mourning.

Next Page >