Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
This comes from the Worldnutdaily, but the video clearly shows what a total asshole this sheriff's deputy from New Mexico is. Two of them, actually. A group of Christians were protesting outside a Rob Zombie concert, telling people to repent or go to hell, etc. You've seen people like this if you've ever gone to many concerts. A bunch of deputies come up and order them to leave because they're on private property (which is disputable, since it's actually public property being leased for the concert).
The lead officer, knowing he's being videotaped, just goes off on a tirade. He turns to the crowd of people waiting in line for the concert and asks them if they want the protesters to stay or go, and of course they say go -- as if that has any relevance at all to the legalities of the situation.
He tells them he doesn't like their sign. Then as he's walking them off the property he starts arguing with them, shouting "I am a non-believer. There is no God. There is no Jesus. There is no Satan" into the camera -- again, as if that has any relevance at all to the situation. Then another cop comes in and orders them to stop videotaping and takes the camera away.
You have to see this video. It's incredible. This guy only succeeds in proving that sometimes an atheist can be just as much an asshole as anyone else. He needs to be fired, immediately.
Politics
Comments
The last thing anyone needs to do is actually persecute Christians. Considering how many of the wingnuts have a Victim Complex and rant about how they're being persecuted already, no one should be giving them ammo.
Posted by: LtStorm | July 28, 2010 11:38 AM
Hold on. This is from Wing Nut Daily?
Then I refuse to draw conclusions from it - in fact, I'm not even going to watch it. I'll wait for the (inevitable) correction and retraction. Well, minus the retraction.
Come on, Ed. Shirly Sherrod was just last week. Surely we haven't forgotten the lesson learned.
The Right Wing Media has no credibility. Stop acting like they do.
Posted by: Yahzi | July 28, 2010 11:45 AM
Yahzi-
Watch the video. There is nothing that could possibly be in the context that could excuse this officer's behavior. You really should try thinking rationally instead of irrationally.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 28, 2010 11:49 AM
Yahzi, you see what you're doing? Assuming they guy must be getting railroaded because you agree with him? That's what the other guys do all the time.
Posted by: Salmo | July 28, 2010 11:58 AM
My problem with the behavior of the group is that even they know that nobody will take them seriously. They do it just to be a nuisance. And for police officers and other officials like the ones in the video to make the mistake to go off on the provocation.
Posted by: Chris From Europe | July 28, 2010 12:00 PM
I think the private versus public property is a bit more complicated. The facility itself is subleased to an entertainment company. Is public land still "public" when it is being leased to private companies? I'm curious to know this because the company pays the government the ability to use the property under the conditions of the lease. How does the law typically approach this topic?
Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | July 28, 2010 12:01 PM
No, I am not assuming the guy is being railroaded because I agree with him. I am assuming the guy is being railroaded because it is on World Nut Daily.
And as for "watch the video..." didn't the NAACP watch the Shirly video? Isn't the lesson that we can't just watch the piece of video the Right Wing Media wants us to watch?
Even if this turns out be entirely true, we still shouldn't react to it until it appears in an actual, credible news media with actual, credible reporting behind it. To do otherwise is to empower the Right Wing lie machine.
To continue to treat the RWM with no change after Sherrod is irresponsible.
Posted by: Yahzi | July 28, 2010 12:07 PM
Ed, I have mixed feelings about this but don't think the cop should be fired. It could certainly have been handled better but this video shows a whole mix of issues. Private property, free speech, contempt of cop, etc.
You can get a bit more analysis at Carlos Miller's site, Photography Is Not A Crime.
Posted by: Scott M. | July 28, 2010 12:07 PM
Ok, so he was a total dick (last time I checked he IS a cop) and his non-beleiver comments were totally out of line, but you never made your case Ed.
What rights were violated if the "private property" status of the land is "debatable".
You make a claim that rights are violated and then admit that the basis for the violation is "debatable". That's hackery in my book Ed. Sounds just like a FoxNews story.
My opinion: a court will need to determine if it's "private" property while leased, if that hasn't already been litigated in the state, but you said "debatable" not "wrong" and IANAL. Also, the only definite violation I see here is the Lts actions with the video taping, but even that may be "legal" depending on if unconstitutional laws are in place in that area.
I love ya Ed, but this is one of your loosest claims of rights violations. Maybe you have a bias towards finding violations against Christians to show how fair your absolutism on Free Speech is. But I won't ask you to prove a negative, I'm only saying it for your own reflection so that you can be sure you aren't operating illogically here. I hope you don't focus on this paragraph, my point is made in the previous 'graphs.
Posted by: Riceklown | July 28, 2010 12:13 PM
It's called "disturbing the peace" (ironic too, no?), the sign bearers certainly were protesting despite their protestations otherwise, and they were beyond that deliberatively provocative, as the sanctimonious natively are ofttimes.
Provocations around rock concerts can become about as disorderly a thing as can be imagined- like, sometimes with death tolls- now what's so hard to understand about that?
Posted by: Kevin Shinn | July 28, 2010 12:20 PM
"Fired?" You're crazy. He should get a raise.
The alternative would be to allow these nutjobs to stand there taunting Rob Zombie fans with their hate-speech and bigotry until one or more decided to step over an get into a physical altercation. They were disturbing the peace and each were told several times to leave. If the cop deserves any personnel action, its because he didn't arrest them after telling them so many times to disperse.
People shouldn't have to endure that superstitious crap while waiting in line for a concert ticket that is already over-priced. In the sun.
Posted by: ylooshi | July 28, 2010 12:27 PM
I'm not too sure about this. As was stated by the posters before me, there is the possibility that public land leased to private hands is temporarily private property, in which case the protesters can only be there with the permission of those who temporarily "own" the land.
I hope you provide updates if this becomes a court battle; it would be interesting to see what a court has to say.
Posted by: KennyG | July 28, 2010 12:33 PM
As a Bernalillo County resident, I applaud his actions. It may have been better to keep a poker face while kicking the nut jobs off the premises, but to hear someone with a badge actually refute the religious drivel is exceptional. I've written to the Sheriff's Dept. in support of the deputy.
Posted by: AKP | July 28, 2010 12:39 PM
Now, back in the day I used to laugh off and mock to scorn this type of buffoon "helping my salvation", and enjoy doing it. However, with this climate developing today? I dunno'...
To paraphrase Bob Dylan's song "Hurricane": The sumbitches are brave and getting braver."
Posted by: Kevin Shinn | July 28, 2010 12:41 PM
ylooshi,
It depends entirely on if the property is considered public. If it is, they had the right to protest whether the fans (or you) like it or not. If one of the fans had chosen to attack them, it would've been his or her own fault. Hate speech and bigotry are not illegal, you know.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 28, 2010 12:43 PM
I'm getting increasingly annoyed at cops attempting to thwart efforts by people to videotape such things. It'd be great to see the Congress take this up.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 28, 2010 12:49 PM
I'm dismayed to see people applauding this cop. The First Amendment prohibition on government endorsement of religion is a bedrock principle of a free society. This includes promoting non-belief over belief as much as the other way around. On duty and acting in an official capacity he had absolutely no excuse for spouting off like that. Damaging the wall of separation simply because, in this case, the ideas the government expressed match your own, simply leaves it weaker when you need its protection.
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 28, 2010 12:58 PM
Gotta agree with Riceklown @ 9,
the cop might be an ass for expressing his opinion, but he doesn't surrender his 1st Amendment rights while on duty. He can express his opinion all he wants.
His department may have issue with his statements while in uniform, but that is a separate issue, and likely not sufficient of an issue to warrant his dismissal (unless he has a history of such behavior).
Now his position on public vs. private land, and the whole "shut off the camera" bit might be a case of cops making up law, but that is a lot different from him expressing his opinion.
Posted by: MadRocketScientist | July 28, 2010 1:03 PM
The question of whether this is public or private property is a close call legally, but that's not the only potential violation going on. First, there's the fact that the officer seized the camera and told him he could not videotape the police -- absolutely wrong and clearly a violation. Second, there is the fact that the officer actually tried to whip up the crowd by asking them if they wanted the protesters to stay -- absolutely appalling conduct. If that isn't a firing offense, that's ridiculous. Regardless of whether you like the message of the protesters, the conduct toward them was incredibly unprofessional and at least party illegal.
Some of the claims above are equally appalling. Kevin Shinn wrote:
Could this not be applied to every single protest that has ever taken place? Would you say the same thing about a protest against BP, for example, at their headquarters? Or a protest at a military recruiting center with "provocative" signs of dead kids from bombing runs? Protests are supposed to be provocative. If someone reacts with violence to such protests, they are the ones violating the law and the job of the police is to protect the protesters from such reactions.
ylooshi wrote:
Let me translate this: Rob Zombie fans have a right not to be confronted by any ideas they don't like and if they react violently to such ideas, the victims of their violence should be arrested for it. What fucking universe do you live in? By your definition, any protest that might provoke a negative response would be "disturbing the peace." There would be no more anti-war protests -- after all, people might get angry about that message and react violently, so those protesters are clearly disturbing the peace. No more protests of mountaintop removal mining, no more protests of unfair working conditions, no more protests of any kind because any protest could provoke a negative response by the target of those protests. Your position pretty much destroys the very idea of free speech.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 28, 2010 1:08 PM
I'm not sure about this video. To me it appears that it may have been edited. Watch the spot right before the officer says "There is no God, etc." very closely. There's a skip, as if a very short bit of the video was deleted. The officer had just said something about the people in line for the concert having the right to choose to believe whatever they want to believe, so I wouldn't rule out the possibility that this officer was saying something like they (the people in line) had a right to say "I'm a non-believer -- There is no Jesus -- etc.," and that the few words he said right before this were edited out to make it appear was making a personal statement about himself to taunt the Christian protesters. I think this officer might deserve the benefit of the doubt unless an unedited copy of the video shows that he was not deliberately taken out of context.
Posted by: Chris Rodda | July 28, 2010 1:14 PM
Chris Mooney would love this guy.
Posted by: Louis B. | July 28, 2010 1:19 PM
Just to be clear, my last comment doesn't mean I don't think these officers were acting like asses by bringing up constitutional issues in what should clearly have been kept to the matter at hand, and by trying to stop the guy from filming, but I just don't trust that this video wasn't edited to make the officer look worse.
Posted by: Chris Rodda | July 28, 2010 1:25 PM
Ed, you wrote "Protests are supposed to be provocative."
Well, that's not the way I was taught; no, protest serves to persuade not provoke else it's ill-designed.
Posted by: Kevin Shinn | July 28, 2010 1:33 PM
Yahzi @2 has it right when he points out that the source defines the message.
For all we know the entire thing is staged. The cop is an actor in rented suit and the protesters were in on the act. Haven't we seen this sort of thing from Breitbart (sic) and the ACORN manufactured event. We can take nothing from certain sources at face value. They have proved time and again then they do not act in good faith. I refuse to be played and will not take anything from this WND as anything but partisan drivel spun beyond recognition, if not manufactured out of whole cloth, to serve their own distorted world view.
The event may be exactly what it is purported to be but it will have to be vetted by some reliable, or at least neutral source, before I will take it as anything but a tale told by a fool.
Posted by: Art | July 28, 2010 1:34 PM
Kevin Shinn wrote:
Which has nothing at all to do with the legal questions here or the behavior of the officer in the video. Your claim that if a protest provokes a negative response it is disturbing the peace and the protesters can be arrested is profoundly dangerous. It endorses the heckler's veto, which is pretty much the end of the very concept of free speech.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 28, 2010 1:37 PM
Further, Mr Brayton? You're not expected to know me, but please realize attempts to lecture me on free speech can really look foolish.
Posted by: Kevin Shinn | July 28, 2010 1:41 PM
Chris Rodda @1:14 is correct. The video is definitely edited causing a skip at the 2:46 mark. I'm reserving judgement until I can see what was cut out.
Posted by: Big Boppa | July 28, 2010 1:43 PM
Art wrote:
Oh for crying out loud. Yes, it was all staged. And they're going to file a lawsuit against those actors and no one will ever find out that it wasn't done by actual sheriff's deputies. There's a point at which such skepticism crosses over into lunacy. The Albuquerque Journal has reported that the officer is under investigation for this same incident. Carlos Miller has reported on it on his website. So have the local TV stations. But if you'd prefer to believe we never landed on the moon, feel free.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 28, 2010 1:44 PM
Do I really have to name the hecklers on display in this video? 'Nuff said.
Posted by: Kevin Shinn | July 28, 2010 1:45 PM
Kevin Shinn wrote:
The only one looking foolish here is you, with your idiotic and incredibly dangerous claim that someone should be arrested for disorderly conduct if their free speech provokes someone else to become violent. That is a profoundly anti-free speech point of view - I don't give a shit who you think you are, that's fucking stupid.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 28, 2010 1:48 PM
Clearly these guys are being dicks and should probably be put on administrative leave at the very least. But I am pretty sure the video is edited.
There is what appears to be a cut at ~2:48, right before he says "I am a non-believer." At least, I think there is.
For all we know, they asked him what his beliefs were and he answered them. That might not have been the brightest move on his part, but it at least would make sense and give his remarks some context. It doesn't change much, particularly if this was indeed not private property, but it makes me wonder if whoever edited this video was specifically trying to make the guy look like he was just randomly spouting crap for no reason.
Posted by: Leni | July 28, 2010 1:49 PM
Sorry for the repeat, it looks like the edit got caught while I was watching and re-watching the video.
Posted by: Leni | July 28, 2010 1:51 PM
Wow. Never have I had a statement of mine proven with such alacrity, and so emphatically to boot! And, did you ever hear the expression "putting words in my mouth", Ed?
Posted by: Kevin Shinn | July 28, 2010 1:56 PM
Where is this guy when you need him?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwyZ0ji1GRU
Posted by: Dr X | July 28, 2010 2:10 PM
Give it a break there Mr. Brayton.
You didn't cite The Albuquerque Journal, Carlos Miller or local TV stations. You cited WND. And only WND.
You are also being irrational and an world-class ass claiming that this is anything resembling reality denial on my part. I simply said that considering the source, WND, the material could not be relied upon. It still can't. You chose to cite WND instead of more reliable sources. If you had better sources you didn't cite them.
Fact being if you wished to credibly make a case about police misbehavior you should have avoided WND entirely. The defect is yours.
Posted by: Art | July 28, 2010 2:23 PM
AKP @ 13:
The deputy is the government in this case. Promoting his personal religious views leveraging the power of government against a captive audience is every bit as repugnant as religionists doing the same. Your standing for government protections for your tribe and not for 'the other' reveals that some religionists aren't the only ways too idiotic to appreciate the wisdom of government staying out of religion altogether.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 28, 2010 2:24 PM
Well, the authoritarians and conspiracy theorists sure came out in force today.
Look folks, even if the property was private, the cops wouldn't even let them stand on the goddam sidewalk! Are you going to tell me the sidewalk was private?
And even if the tape has an edit in it, the fact that the cop tried to whip up the crowd proves that's absolutely unfit for his job. A competent cop will try to deescalate a confrontation, not escalate it.
And Mr. Shinn--you're not even remotely demonstrating that you support free speech. You're only supporting the heckler's veto. As a matter of First Amendment law (you may have heard of that whole constitution thingy we've got going on in this here country), you have a right to speak in public even if other people object. The only place the Court's drawn the line on that kind of speech is with "fighting words," and "you're going to hell" doesn't constitute--as a matter of constitutional law--fighting words.
But hey, who am I to pierce your self-deceptions about what a great free-speech supporter you are? I mean, I must be some kind of elitists for actually knowing the law on the matte or something.
Posted by: James Hanley | July 28, 2010 2:26 PM
Mr. Shinn, that statement would make you look like an ass, even if you had demonstrated much understanding of the First Amendment. Please don't dig yourself any deeper.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | July 28, 2010 2:31 PM
Kevin Shinn @33: Wow. Never have I had a statement of mine proven with such alacrity, and so emphatically to boot!
What statement was that? And who proved it? As far as I can tell your entire argument consists of insinuating that because these folks' speech might, hypothetically, have started violence, it was perfectly okay to silence them.
Thats wrong on at least three levels. First: we do not shut down speech merely because some hand-wringing bystander insinuates there might be violence. If we did, that would be giving you the heckler's veto, you dope. Second: no violence actually happened so there was no reason on the site for the police to intervene. Third: if the Rob Zombie supporters would've gotten violent because of the proselytizers' words, then its the Rob Zombie supporters who are disturbing the peace and the Rob Zombie supporters who the police should've dragged away. (And just to be clear, if Zombie supporters had started taunting them and the proselytizers had started throwing fists, then its right to drag the protesters away.)
But look, if all that's too complicated just answer this simple questions - who, exactly, do you think proved your point for you, and how?
Posted by: eric | July 28, 2010 2:41 PM
@Ed Brayton & Kevin Shinn
Did you guys coordinate the Monty Python, Black Knight parody ahead of time? Because that was spot on!
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 28, 2010 2:42 PM
Posted by: Cynical | July 28, 2010 2:51 PM
I couldn't find the story on the Abq Hournal or Santa Fe New Mexican websites, but here's the story on the local ABS affiliate: http://www.koat.com/video/24401564/index.html. I don't trust WND either, but those of you insisting "it's all staged" could just as easily have spent your own 5 minutes on Google to find other sources.
Posted by: WScott | July 28, 2010 2:52 PM
Art wrote:
No I didn't. I noted that I had found it on the WND, but never cited them at all. I cited what was in the video, which is what they and several other sources were reporting on. You overreacted to ridiculously to the fact that they reported on it that you invented the incredibly fanciful idea that it must have been staged and fake in order to justify not taking it seriously. If you were actually concerned about whether it was true or not, it would have taken about 30 seconds to find out. You could even have said, "hey, are other sources also reporting on this?" Instead, you had a kneejerk reaction and invented a crazy conspiracy theory to justify it. Don't blame me for laughing at you over it.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 28, 2010 3:23 PM
KRQE has a story with the following:
http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/local/central/deputy%E2%80%99s-rant-spurs-investigation
Several commenters say the video is edited and one says the deputy was asked if he believed in God.
Posted by: Tophe | July 28, 2010 3:34 PM
My two cents:
1. AFAIK, the Abq Pavilion is owned by the casino, not the City, County or State. So it appears to me that the Deputy was within his rights to chase the protestors off the property. I agree the sidewalk outside probably should’ve been far enough, tho I believe the law allows some latitude for maintaining unrestricted access, blah blah?
1b. But to further complicate matters, I believe the casino is actually tribally owned, so it’s possible the land could be tribal public land? IANAL, and Tribal law is a whole `nother can of worms, but I believe the pueblos have the legal right to refuse entry to non-tribal members if they want. (Or at least, I know several of them routinely do so.) That may account for why the protestors were moved so far away? I’m not claiming to know the answer - I'm just raising the issue.
2. Asking the crowd for moral support was unnecessary, inflammatory, and just plain stupid. But not certainly illegal.
3. Expressing his own views to the protestors might’ve been okay if they were just standing around talking and they asked his opinion. But he was in the middle of an act of enforcement, and so clearly representing the government. OTOH, he wasn’t actively trying to force others to agree with his views – he was just expressing them in an admittedly-inappropriate way. Stupid certainly; deserving of reprimand, probably. But I don’t think he deserves to be fired over it.
4. The arrest: I wasn’t clear if they were arrested for protesting, trespassing, refusing to follow orders, or what? Seems fishy to me, tho I agree that the unedited video may tell another story. More to the point, I couldn’t tell if deputy’s intent was to seize the camera, or to arrest the cameraman. If the arrest was legit in the first place (see reservations above), then the deputy was well within his rights to say, essentially “put down the camera so I can put cuffs on you.” If he had instead knocked the guy to the ground and broke his camera, you’d be calling him as asshole for that, right?
Posted by: WScott | July 28, 2010 3:41 PM
From my viewing, the cop starts well - he says that the guys are on private property and are not wanted there, so they must leave, or be arrested, which is fair enough (assuming it's true, of course). However, asking the crowd of people waiting to get in if they wanted the Christians to stay or go was unprofessional and irrelevant to the situation. Checking to see where they had to move to to not be on private property and letting them hear the answer was a good move, and holding forth on the fact he was an atheist, and what that means, to me, seemed to be in response to the Christians saying things like 'you'll burn in hell', so it's understandable he might respond as he did, but, as a police officer, was unprofessional, and, again, irrelevant to the situation. From there, there are parts of the video obviously edited out, so anything following this point is suspect, but, even taking that into account, the cop baiting the Christian by asking if he's a 'gay homosexual' because he must have a crush on the cop was more unprofessionalism on his part. At the end, where the cop tells him to turn the camera off, though, the guy with the camera is completely right - he does have a right to video the cops.
In summary, assuming the cops were right in saying that was private property, and those folk weren't wanted, apart from being a bit unprofessional, the only thing the cops definitely did wrong, from what I can see, is ignoring the fact the guy with the camera had a right to video the cops. Even then, from what I can see, it was only that one cop, at the end, that is responsible for that - the rest seemed to have no problem with being filmed.
Posted by: Zmidponk | July 28, 2010 3:43 PM
There's a tendancy by true-believers to assume that nothing bad happens in their camp. It's the no true Scotsman fallacy run amok. Remember Ronald Reagan claiming that Contra attrocities were really committed by Sandinistas dressed up in contra uniforms? For some secular-types it's impossible to imagine that Christians might be the victims and their fellow secularists don't look good so it must be a conspiracy.
Posted by: Bill in NC | July 28, 2010 3:48 PM
WScott @ 43 - Mr.Brayton presented an argument and used WND as his only source. This I rejected, based on the unreliability of that source. Sources and information should be at least marginally credible.
I also never claimed that "it's all staged". I simply said that I don't know that it's not staged and that given the history of staged and distorted videos provided by such sources it should be given zero credibility.
I refuse to play handmaiden to WND by checking anything they say. Five minutes of Google to cross-check WND material is more than five minutes wasted because I would have to interact with WND first. WND, and most of the rest of the GOP noise machine, can be entirely discounted as a source. Any incidental truth they may present is surely represented elsewhere, in purer and less distorted form, by persons or organizations with some credibility.
Life is too short to argue with, or parse the arguments of, madmen and right-wing hatchet-men. Yes, everyone has the right to free speech. But after thirty years of poisonous lies, distortions, sown discord, and having good people smeared, it is time to realize that while they have every right to speak I have every right to ignore them.
As you point out. There are other, more credible, sources.
Posted by: Art | July 28, 2010 4:02 PM
No I didn't. I noted that I had found it on the WND, but never cited them at all.
This comes from the Worldnutdaily...
You told us that you found it on WND. Someone made the point that anything on WND is unreliable and should be verified. You claimed that it could be verified in 30 seconds. Well, then Ed, why didn't you verify it and give us more reliable links? Why do you expect us to verify your stories? Why did you not know whether it was private or public property and yet quoted the story anyway? Are you so full of hate for the police that you really don't care whether your stories are accurate as long as they reflect poorly on the police?
Posted by: Tom | July 28, 2010 4:07 PM
This is an interesting Rorschach test for the kind of people who love Ed's site. Anyone who knows anything about Mr. Brayton could predict he would side with the protesters on this issue, as do I. Watch the video on silent and imagine these protesters had a political message that you agree with, rather than religious baloney that they actually shouted. What this says is that your rights to speak your mind and to videotape police officers exists regardless of the content of your speech. If you support free speech and holding those who have been armed by the government to execute its laws accountable for their actions, you will agree with Ed. Otherwise, you are just a partisan.
People who protest rock concerts are nutty, but I will defend with my own life their right to say nutty things.
Posted by: Chuck | July 28, 2010 4:10 PM
There's a tendancy[sic] by true-believers to assume that nothing bad happens in their camp. It's the no true Scotsman fallacy run amok.
This is completely inaccurate. No one said that the police officer couldn't have done what he is accused of. The point was made that a video posted on WND is not reliable because of the history of videos posted on WND.
Posted by: Tom | July 28, 2010 4:10 PM
People who protest rock concerts are nutty, but I will defend with my own life their right to say nutty things.
I think we all do. But if you protest in the lobby of BP's office building, expect to be ordered out and possibly arrested. You don't have 1st amendment rights when you are standing on my lawn. You don't have the right to protest or to videotape when you are on private property.
Posted by: Tom | July 28, 2010 4:23 PM
There simply isn't enough information to develop an intelligent opinion from this video. There are too many pertinent facts missing.
The one thing that does bothered me when I see videos of the police in the process of acting in their official capacity is the effort to shut off recording devices.
There are a lot of places where laws have been passed to make the recording of public employees in their official capacity illegal. This bothers me deeply, in a free society ALL ACTIONS taken by public employees should be transparent.
Posted by: Gregg R. Thomas | July 28, 2010 4:23 PM
Tom, I think the incident with the cop trying to get the protester to turn off the video was outside on the sidewalk. At that point he probably did have a right to videotape.
Posted by: Leni | July 28, 2010 4:32 PM
Well, I'm 98% in agreement with that. I do believe in the necessity of secret intelligence gathering, however.
But, yeah, cops should be on videotape every minute they're on duty. Even when they stop to take a piss.
Posted by: James Hanley | July 28, 2010 4:40 PM
Tom wrote:
I based my post on what was on the video, just as the Worldnutdaily based their article on what was on the video; I did not base my article on what the Worldnutdaily said. Two different reactions to the same source evidence, that just happens to be where I saw the video. It is what is in the video itself that matters, not where I found it. No matter where I found it, there are multiple incidents on the video that should be be condemned and I condemned them.
I didn't quote any story, sorry. It is public property leased to a private company for an event; that makes it a gray area in the law, which is why I did not rely on that particular aspect of the situation for my criticism. It's possible that a court will find that the venue can make them go across the street to protest. But that still leaves several aspects of what is on that video that are quite outrageous.
There is no hatred required, simply watch the video. Regardless of the technicalities of whether it was public or private property for the purposes of this event, there are still multiple instances of illegal and unprofessional behavior:
1. Taking the camera away. Absolutely illegal. He had every right to videotape the police in the process of making an arrest -- especially in light of the behavior of the police in regard to...
2. Trying to whip up the crowd by asking them if they wanted the protesters to be thrown out, making their rights dependent on the mob. That is absolutely unconscionable behavior for a police officer. That is insane behavior for a police officer. If that is not enough to get someone fired, something is deeply wrong here.
3. Saying "what are you, a gay homosexual" to the guy? Are you seriously going to defend that?
Even if we presume that chasing them off the property was a legal action (we just don't know for sure but a court will likely decide that) and even if we presume that the video was edited and the cop was asked his religious views (which is possible), that still leaves one blatantly illegal act and two instances of incredibly unprofessional behavior that should get the officer fired in only a few minutes times.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 28, 2010 4:46 PM
Chuck wrote, #50:
I can tell you, as a long-time participant in one very protracted and serious protest action in particular, we ourselves shut down any and all provocative nonsense... we practiced self-policing as a matter of policy, but again our purpose was persuasion not self-indulgent and self-congratulatory masturbation. And my teacher? I think few of you with any history would deny he was one of the best, even though we didn't often win (we took on big issues and so were over-matched, on one hand... and less than ideally efficient, on the other).
Posted by: Kevin Shinn | July 28, 2010 4:46 PM
Kevin Shinn,
You're talking about what is the best method of protest. You're not talking about what is lawful.
Whether the protest caught on tape was an effective protest is not what's at issue here. Your inability to make that distinction is why you're not getting any respect here.
Shorter Kevin Shinn: "Stupid protest methods justify police shutting them down."
Posted by: James Hanley | July 28, 2010 4:53 PM
As for the invective and abuse directed my way by the self-proclaimed "anti-authoritarians" here? I don't cotton to interrogation and I don't stoop.
Posted by: Kevin Shinn | July 28, 2010 4:54 PM
Kevin Shinn,
It's a bit hard to say since you don't bother mentioning his name, in which case I wonder the point of your bringing it up in the first place. Are you here to discuss what happened in the video, or to brag obliquely by playing "Do you know who I am?"?
Posted by: Gretchen | July 28, 2010 4:54 PM
I'm all for transparency and accountability, but there are two potential problems with videotaping cops on duty. First, sometimes cops deal with matters of private lives that should not necessarily be on YouTube for all to see. And second, when a guy is arrested on camera, and his face goes public on YouTube or Fox, that's very prejudicial, and a serious blow to his reputation that won't be easily fixed if he later turns out to be innocent and wrongly arrested.
Videotaping cops in action can help keep them honest, but it can also interfere with the presumption of innocence -- not to mention the ability to get an unbiased jury for a defendant who has already been plastered all over the Web.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 28, 2010 4:59 PM
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm on my way down to the park to shout at my fellow townspeople how stupid and benighted they all truly are, and I'll keep at it until they acknowledge my rectitude. If police show up and attempt to interfere with my desires, I'll pull out my laptop and direct them to this discussion so that they go away and leave me to my task.
Posted by: Kevin Shinn | July 28, 2010 5:03 PM
You don't know? Seriously? You don't know who Kevin Shinn is?
Posted by: carlsonjok | July 28, 2010 5:05 PM
Kevin Shinn:
and
You use appeals to authority to try and shut criticism on a site that you yourself note is anti-authoritarian and at the same time expect us to believe that you don't stoop to provocation? I suppose it's possible. But the alternatives don't cast you in a very favorable light either.
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 28, 2010 5:11 PM
Abby Normal,
Not just appeals to authority, but appeals to anonymous authority. I think we might have witnessed the birth of a new logical fallacy.
Posted by: heddle | July 28, 2010 5:14 PM
Heddle:
Actually, Dave, I think Dembski uses this one all the time when he refers to colleagues who wish to remain anonymous.
Posted by: carlsonjok | July 28, 2010 5:16 PM
carlsonjok,
Ahh, yes of course. I got all excited for nothing.
Posted by: heddle | July 28, 2010 5:22 PM
And my teacher? I think few of you with any history would deny he was one of the best
Ladies and gentlemen...
That's right...
It's the Karate Kid...
Posted by: 386sx | July 28, 2010 5:22 PM
I based my post on what was on the video
OK, so then you are saying that FOX was correct when they based their stories on what they found on the Sherrod video. In spite of knowing that the source of the video is unreliable and that the video may be edited, you still think it's fine to reach conclusions about it.
It is public property leased to a private company for an event
Wrong. The property belongs to the Hard Rock Casino.
I didn't quote any story, sorry.
And either did FOX News when they wrote about the Sherrod story.
Taking the camera away. Absolutely illegal.
Wrong. Depending on state law, videotaping on private property can be illegal unless you have permission.
As far as I see the cop did nothing illegal and although you say that he "stirred up the crowd" I didn't see any stirred up crowd nor did I see anyone in any danger from anything the cop did. Yes, he showed poor judgment and he should probably have a disciplinary hearing to go over the events but he should certainly not lose his job unless he has a history of problems during his 18 years as a police officer.
Posted by: Tom | July 28, 2010 5:23 PM
You don't know? Seriously? You don't know who Kevin Shinn is?
A restaurant owner in Lincoln, Nebraska?
http://www.blogger.com/profile/16074753807595569032
Posted by: Tom | July 28, 2010 5:26 PM
Tom:
A restaurant owner in Lincoln, Nebraska?
Beats me. I was hoping someone else knew.
Posted by: carlsonjok | July 28, 2010 5:31 PM
Heddle:
Posted by: carlsonjok | July 28, 2010 5:34 PM
@45:
According to this Albuquerque TV station, the Pavilion is owned by the state, leased to the county and leased, in turn, to the private company, Live Nation.
Listen beginning @ 1:17
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MXqlslo23o
Posted by: Dr X | July 28, 2010 5:45 PM
He seems to be related to John Kw*k.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 28, 2010 5:57 PM
carlsonjok
Yes, but did I ever tell you that I detected signs of room temperature fusion in that crumb? Of course, I was in Utah. Good times.
Posted by: heddle | July 28, 2010 6:00 PM
I suspect Ed has had one too many traffic tickets. Surely this isn't his first cop-hater post.
Hey, if you don't like my opinion, just re-write in a way you can more easily defeat it. Strawman much, Ed?
My point was that the police may have very well diffused a physical altercation between two disagreeing entities: the nutjobs and the "Zombies." They're whole purpose in being there was to keep the peace. They did. The "asshole[s]" are the nutjobs taunting the cops doing their jobs. Public servants like this guy are doing a thankless and dangerous job to begin with... then cop-haters with too many tickets, problems with authority, libertarian ideas, etc. come along and ridicule them.
Sorry, but you're wrong. The cop was in the right. His choices of words weren't the best, but he did his job. The only thing Goff did wrong was taunt them back with his own personal opinions. That part was the only unprofessional thing I saw.
Posted by: ylooshi | July 28, 2010 6:12 PM
Kevin Shinn,
One of the Amway distributors sued by Proctor and Gamble over spreading stories of the Satanic P&G logo?
SFPD Deputy Chief of police?
Am I getting warmer or colder? How many guesses do we get?
An observation: the cryptic routine wears thin pretty quickly. You can only allude to your special, ultrasuper-secret, batcave, storehouse of superior knowledge and experience so many times before put-up or shut-up becomes operative.
Posted by: Dr X | July 28, 2010 6:15 PM
The cops twisted my arm, and now I've had to make the mistake of coming back here. I learned at the knee of among others Abbie Hoffman, primus inter pares practitioner of guerrilla theater, and that's an easily vertified fact... for whatever that's worth. Now I will proceed home as instructed.
Posted by: Kevin Shinn | July 28, 2010 6:26 PM
Shinn,
Indeed we are anti-authoritarian. Hence our criticisms of your appeal to authority.
That and the fact that pointing out an idiot's idiocy has nothing to do with authoritarianism, but you obviously are a close friend to many types of logical fallacies.
Posted by: James Hanley | July 28, 2010 6:33 PM
What Would Rob Zombie Do?
He wouldn't have arrested them. I'm pretty sure. He's not that kind of guy.
Has anyone ever said to themselves, "oh shit man I really wanna go and see the Gwar show, but those Christian protesters are just so scary"
Think about it - that protest was as close as some of those kids are ever allowed near a real music show. While I can't imagine ever wanting to get within earshot of any specifically "christian rock" music (though rock isn't really the issue, they can ruin anything), it does give me comfort to think I could ineffectually protest their awful, awful, bloodless noise and not get hassled by the cops for it.
Peaceful protesting is not something we need the police cracking down on.
Posted by: debaser | July 28, 2010 6:35 PM
And we have that on the authority of the primus inter pares of sanctimony.
Posted by: Dr X | July 28, 2010 6:39 PM
All I said was this: you have no business getting in my face and annoying me, whatever social, political, religious, or authoritative stripe you wear; I'm sorry, your rights don't "end at my nose" they end at the edge of my ear's perception. That's not my opinion, that is a matter of precedence. you have no business getting in my face and annoying me, and I don't care if you're across the street; if you're hurling invective at me and I fail to silence you with rejoiner then my rights extend to asking the constabulary remove you from within earshot. It's that simple.
But then it's a well-known fact I'm a simple man.
If Abbie's message could be distilled to a lyric someone simple like Joe Strummer might sing perhaps it would go something like, oh, say "know your rights."
Posted by: Kevin Shinn | July 28, 2010 6:44 PM
Tom wrote:
Nope. Ask yourself this question: Is there anything that might be in the context of the tape, something that might have been edited out, that could possibly make those three things that I highlighted as wrong okay for the officer to do? The answer is no. Unless what was edited out was "Cut, that's a wrap" -- which is obviously absurd -- then there is nothing that could have happened that could possibly justify the officer A) taking the camera; B) asking the crowd if the protesters should be allowed to stay; or C) asking the cameraman if he was "gay homosexual." I asked myself that question when I saw the tape. Is there any conceivable, reasonable way that the unedited video would change the reality of those things? Nope. End of story.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 28, 2010 6:46 PM
Ylooshi disingenuously writes;
By this logic, cops are justified in stopping every protest, because there are always people who object to it. Every person who protests outside an abortion clinic could be forced to go far enough way that nobody there can hear them. Progressive protesters at the Republican National Convention or the a meeting of the WTO could be sequestered far enough away that no supports of the Republicans or free trade, respectively, would risk hearing them, getting offended, and lashing out. And that would be a thorough gutting of our First Amendment rights.
Even if the Rob Zombie fans got mad and started a riot, the Christians would still have a right to wave their signs and chant their slogans. If the danger is that the listeners might not be able to constrain themselves, then it is those out-of-control listeners who need to be removed, not those who are legally protesting.
Ed is not wrong, Ylooshi. You are, as a matter of both logic and constitutional law.
Posted by: James Hanley | July 28, 2010 6:47 PM
Mr. Shinn wrote:
Bullshit. I know First Amendment law. There's no such precedence. There's a fighting words exception, and a speech+action rule, but there's no "right not to be exposed to" exception.
Are you lying to us, hoping you can fool us, or are you actually that badly misinformed?`
Posted by: James Hanley | July 28, 2010 6:51 PM
ylooshi wrote:
Wrong. Their job is to protect our rights, including the right to protest. There is no equivalent right on the part of the concertgoers. They do not have a right not to hear the views of others. If anyone actually breaches the peace, it's the job of the police to arrest them. But the act of protest is not a breach of the peace. So again, with no strawman at all, you are advocating that the police "keep the peace" by taking away the right to free speech of someone whose views might bother other people. But that is not their job.
Being an asshole is not against the law. Taunting police officers is not against the law. The officer's job is to protect those who are exercising their rights against those who would break the law in response to them.
Then you are utterly clueless. That is actually the least objectionable thing the officer did here.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 28, 2010 6:51 PM
Philadelphia Electric pulled the "this is under rule of law not rule of man" card on us because their corporation had slyly gathered a passel of contracts for twenty years before springing upon the people of the Greater Philadelphia area what they considered a fait accompli.
To the extent we came close to frustrating their designs, we did so through establishing they had significantly circumvented laws regarding public disclosure. We had to establish we had not been unruly in physically impeding their construction work but were in fact defending the law of the land. In that, we were promoting domestic tranquility and the commonweal even as we engaged actions which generated real turbulence.
Posted by: Kevin Shinn | July 28, 2010 6:55 PM
I must go home, swatting at gnats gives me no happiness, but I'll leave you with this to ponder along with your fighting words:
Is there a bar or taproom with entertainment in your neighborhood?
Posted by: Kevin Shinn | July 28, 2010 7:01 PM
Kevin Shinn wrote:
Okay, I call bullshit. You claim to have learned about protests from Abbie Hoffman and to have been taught not to be provocative? No way in hell. Abbie Hoffman was nothing if not provocative. I happen to know one of his best friends. I'm guessing that if I told him what you said you learned from Abbie he would laugh his ass off.
Another opinion Abbie Hoffman would condemn as fascist. Sorry, you're wrong. There is no such exception to the First Amendment, nor has there ever been. You do not have a right not to be exposed to the views of others if they bother you. If anyone had that right, the notion of free speech would be dead the moment anyone walks within range of someone saying anything they didn't like.
You are either a troll or a pathological liar. Those are really the only two possibilities at this point. You say this is a matter of precedence, how about naming a single court case that supports you. I can name dozens that don't. There is an incitement to riot exception, but it applies only in extremely narrow circumstances -- like when someone is actually inciting people to riot, not when they're saying something others don't like so it might provoke a reaction. Even the fighting words exception that James mentioned doesn't really exist anymore; since the Supreme Court identified it they haven't applied it a single time, not even in a case where someone burned a cross in the yard of a black family. For all practical purposes, there is no such exception anymore. And there sure as hell is no "if I hear something I don't like I can have them arrested" exception. Abbie Hoffman would call you a fascist. He'd be right.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 28, 2010 7:02 PM
Surely your awareness extends to the knowledge passive resistance is impossible when one's jaw is flapping?
Posted by: Kevin Shinn | July 28, 2010 7:08 PM
It would be nice if Keven Shinn would talk about something that could be considered relevant. Or coherent, for that matter. In any case, an asshole cop is an asshole cop. My biases land squarely with the concert-goers and I think the protesters are idiots... but that doesn't justify the cop's actions.
That's the whole point of the First Amendment; to protect everyone's views, regardless of what I (or you, or Officer Whoever) think of them.
Posted by: Kyorosuke | July 28, 2010 7:08 PM
Call bullshit. Go to your door and shout it to the street.
Posted by: Kevin Shinn | July 28, 2010 7:11 PM
As a government official, the officer sould have left out his personal opinions on the subject. It's no excuse but I understand the desire to tell those clowns off.
As long as he was honestly under the assumption that the protestors were on private property and the property owner wanted them to leave I don't see a problem with the officers making them leave.
Does leasing property give you some rights over who is allowed to be on the property? Sorry if it was already answered and I missed it in the comments.
Posted by: Owen | July 28, 2010 7:12 PM
Just make sure you have a Bible in hand when you do, else you might be subject to arrest.
Posted by: Kevin Shinn | July 28, 2010 7:16 PM
From what I took from the video, the officer making the atheist claims was not the same office as the one who took the camera and demanded footage to be stopped. Plus, I rather liked the officer's snide remark about the sexuality of the cameraman, though still in poor taste. Of course the officers are in the wrong for not wishing to be recorded, and the verbal comments were unprofessional. Unfortunately, I highly doubt those aspects of the story will be told. Only the fact that "Christians were persecuted" and "zOMG it's Mao!!!" will be amplified by the echo-chamber.
Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | July 28, 2010 7:23 PM
By the way, my personal "authority", the allusion of which started the fooferaw swirling about me me me?
Actually, I was only referring to the fact I'm the guy in my town who everyone tells "Shut Up!"
Posted by: Kevin Shinn | July 28, 2010 7:23 PM
Hence I'm well acquainted with the limits of free speech. Moreso than any of you.
Posted by: Kevin Shinn | July 28, 2010 7:29 PM
The officers personal opinion should have been kept to himself. He crossed the line and that was unprofessional. If the protestors were on private property I think they can be asked to leave. If they refused, failure to leave would be considered 2nd degree trespass. Once the protestors, were escorted to a public right of way, they would have been free to express themselves once again.
Posted by: Ed Brown | July 28, 2010 7:34 PM
I can see why, considering that you appear to be absolutely batty.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 28, 2010 7:36 PM
Kevin Shinn stated:
It's precedent, not precedence. Also, what exact ruling are you referencing? Could you please provide that and the text within that ruling that supports your assertion?
I'm confident the quality of your response will convincingly determine who in your words @ 88 is "swatting at gnats".
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 28, 2010 7:38 PM
I think what #97 means is everyone in his town understands free speech better than any of us, since we don't have to listen to him all the time.
Posted by: debaser | July 28, 2010 7:43 PM
since the public land had been leased out for private use, then whether or not they had the right to be there (and thus, whether or not the cop had the right to make the them leave) would depend on the terms of the lease and the local laws governing such things. i think.
yes, they are irritating SoB's who are being deliberately provocative.
but there's really no excuse for the officer confiscating the camera or inciting the crowd.
kudos to you, Ed, for your consistency in defending the rights of ... well, assholes.
Posted by: andrew | July 28, 2010 7:47 PM
Last thought: I call bullshit on anyone tries tell me Abbie wasn't first and foremost a respecter of law.
Posted by: Kevin Shinn | July 28, 2010 7:51 PM
Multiple comments later, and Shinn still hasn't provided his alleged precedent.
But from the tone of his comments, I'm beginning to think he's not even a serious troll, but someone who's actually a bit mental. I think perhaps our best best is to start ignoring him quickly. I always find myself getting really squeamish when we start bashing people who may truly be suffering from mental problems.
Posted by: James Hanley | July 28, 2010 7:53 PM
Kevin Shinn, #103: Last thought:
I think your last thought was quite a while ago.
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 28, 2010 7:53 PM
I really gotta' learn discipline yet. Of course, my definition of annoyance doesn't wash, it must be a commonly understood perspective 'fore we invoke law..
Posted by: Kevin Shinn | July 28, 2010 8:19 PM
Snide, rude, and everso self-satisfied folk such as James Hanley might consider it their good fortune the fact I am more stable than they.
Posted by: Kevin Shinn | July 28, 2010 8:23 PM
This is just hilarious:
An advisement to stop bashing, which comtains additional bashing. Priceless, as it's said.
Precedent: Have you ever heard of a noise ordinance? Don't answer.
Posted by: Kevin Shinn | July 28, 2010 8:32 PM
Answer, and who knows? I might go crazy on ya'. Provided I'm actually stupid enough to peek in here again.
Posted by: Kevin Shinn | July 28, 2010 8:42 PM
Kevin Shinn wrote:
Of course. They are entirely irrelevant to this conversation. Noise ordinances are viewpoint neutral. That isn't what you've been arguing for at all. You're arguing that you can have someone arrested merely for saying something you don't like within earshot. That's not just wrong, it's utter fucking idiocy.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 28, 2010 8:53 PM
Kevin Shinn,
Should I assume no such ruling and text exists supportive of your assertion @ 82? See my post @ 100 for my request; I noticed you referred to this law again @ 103 and yet no citation is presented.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 28, 2010 8:54 PM
@ Dr X 73: My mistake - thanks for the correction.
Posted by: WScott | July 28, 2010 8:58 PM
Well...I'm glad to see this happen and hope it happens more often.
Posted by: Strange Magic | July 28, 2010 9:09 PM
@113 You hope to see more non-violent protesters arrested by cops engaging in some very (new) professional behavior, or you hope to see Ed sandblast more authoritarians with the force of his wit and legal acumen?
'Cause right on with the second one.
Good odds on Kevin Shinn being either Tom Johnson or the Grand Duchess Anastasia.
Posted by: snurp | July 28, 2010 10:26 PM
i dont see anything in the video, the owners, didnt want them on the site, so they had to move, to where the area, isnt own by the venu....... on the other side of the street, easy as saying... Okay johnny law.... I dont think the cop over reacted one bit, the kids was not listeining to the office.
in the end of the day, if you think some grow 40 or 50 some year old man, calling him self Bob "ZOMBIE" and if you think hes evil..... then you have issues.
Posted by: John | July 28, 2010 10:37 PM
PS, and youre a journalist with the titled, "another asshole cop", someone has daddy issues, douchbag.
NoW if the cop would have been yelling screaming, telling them to fu*k off, beating them, yes that would be "another asshole cop" Hiding behind the "shield" but he wasnt, and he did his job at top rate, so another asshole journalist, that didnt make fame, that has daddy issues writes mis-leadin title.
Posted by: john | July 28, 2010 10:45 PM
The journalist thing seems to be one of the standard, know-nothing douche comments. This is a blog and Ed is blogging and John clearly has Daddy issues given his need to reflexively defend authority figures.
You see, John, you're not the only "psychologist' around here.
Posted by: Dr X | July 28, 2010 10:55 PM
Daddy issues? LMAO. I have a very good relationship with my father. He's appalled by government agents abusing their authority too.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 28, 2010 10:58 PM
Kevin Shinn -
Hence I'm well acquainted with the limits of free speech. Moreso than any of you.
Motherfucker, I stood in front of my state capitol with about twenty six other people and lit a joint. Got my ass kicked by the cops and went to jail. The next year same protest happens. There were too many to arrest and the cops just tried to keep everyone involved in a specific area. While it may have been a stupid, self-serving thing to protest, pushing just past the limit actually made something happen.
I also managed to engage in several acts of civil disobedience involving environmental issue, running straight up to the limits, dismissing people who had good reasons not to go to jail and passing those limits. Fuck you and your "Moreso than any of you." and your bullshit about protests not being provocative - that's the point of a protest, jackass.
Stopping traffic gets you press. Chaining yourself to fifty other people and to the fence surrounding a construction site and blocking it gets you press. Getting tear gassed gets you press. Getting your ass kicked by cops, on camera, gets you press. Hell, just getting fucking loud with a peaceful crowd gets you press.
Standing around quietly, picking your nose with a fucking sign doesn't get real press.
Posted by: DuWayne | July 28, 2010 11:07 PM
snurp -
Actually, he reminds me a lot of Kwok - smug, arguing from name dropping, misrepresenting those he name drops, arguing about something he clearly knows nothing about - that is definitely Kwok territory.
Although I could totally go for calling him the Grand Duchess, he certainly seems to like clutching at pearls.
Posted by: DuWayne | July 28, 2010 11:13 PM
Ed, I think you mean "Another Asshole Cop Violates Rights, This Time of Christians."
Posted by: Azkyroth | July 29, 2010 1:55 AM
Y'know, for a purported "Science Blog" folk here displayed a distinct proclivity for jumping to conclusions.
Posted by: Kevin Shinn | July 29, 2010 7:33 AM
Kevin Shinn, I can't speak for anybody but me*, but the only time I jump to conclusions is for an Office Space reference.
* On occasion, not even then.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | July 29, 2010 7:51 AM
If folk can no longer discern the difference between protest- persuasion- and heckling-provocation- then free speech is dead.
When one provokes, what is elicited? You get a reaction. That’s not the path forward. Not for liberalism, anyway.
Posted by: Kevin Shinn | July 29, 2010 8:40 AM
Kevin Shinn states:
Says the person whose failed to provide the ruling they claim exists and they use to support their argument but in fact is impotent in providing (because we know it doesn't exist).
Ed expressed the point those of us who do demonstrate literacy in 1st Amendment issues quite well @ 83:
Mr. Shinn - we're on to you and were from the start. The only person you're fooling here is yourself and any other commenters who are illiterates like you on the Constitution.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 29, 2010 8:47 AM
Y'know, for a purported "Science Blog" folk here displayed a distinct proclivity for jumping to conclusions.
Sweetheart, we are all basing our comments about you on what you actually have said. It's not hard to back up the assertion that you're full of shit, when you provide us with more than ample fucking evidence that that is the case.
Meanwhile, not based on any available evidence, you have jumped to many conclusions about Ed and other commenters - not the least being their understanding of free speech. Let me assure you that excepting some lawyers, you are unlikely to ever run across anyone who understands the U.S. constitution and specifically our free speech rights, better than Ed.
And I know damned well that you don't understand the first thing about protesting. I have not only been to workshops on non-violent protests, I even contributed to one about dealing with cops who are arresting you for civil disobedience. Now I will grant that my "expertise" in that came from having been arrested many, many times and it mainly involved explaining how to avoid the worst of tear gas or getting beaten, but it was quite valuable nonetheless.
But anyone who asserts that protests shouldn't be provocative is a fucking idiot who knows nothing about protesting. That isn't jumping to conclusions about you, that is making a conclusion based on the available evidence.
Now if you will all excuse me, I need to drop most of the ceiling of my van.
Posted by: DuWayne | July 29, 2010 8:51 AM
You have no idea what you're talking about. Turn the tables around and imagine the protesters were atheists. We know, from multiple incidents, that some people get very offended if atheists dare so much as to publicly admit their existence - to the point of vandalism and threats. Does that mean atheists do not have a free speech right to even admit to being atheists?
Posted by: DaveL | July 29, 2010 8:59 AM
Don't anyone try tell me the Founding Folk were provocateurs either. America's founders sought accommodation. At no stage did they attack or assail. The colonists did forcibly rebuff attack and what passed into, after the balloon went up, the condition of invasion and occupation. The message at all stages was we will persuade you to let us be.
Don't make the mistake of thinking I'm the one who doesn't understand. I alway keep a stick by my bed or front door, and its name is Persuasion.
Posted by: Kevin Shinn | July 29, 2010 9:25 AM
Kevin Shinn, you named a stick? That ain't right.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | July 29, 2010 9:30 AM
Kevin Shinn,
You don't get it do you? No one is taking your arguments seriously. It's obvious you're full of shit. The more interesting question is whether the idiocy of your arguments comes from mental illness, your a Poe, or just completely lacking in critical thinking skills.
But please keep posting, you're entertaining in a buffonish sort of way.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 29, 2010 9:35 AM
Kevin, Darling, you are truly hilarious. In, as Michael says, a buffoonish fashion. This is definitely not the best place to try to go head to head on the founding of this country, especially if you are going to make absurd comments like your last one.
Michael Heath -
I would be extremely grateful if you would email me at your convenience. duwayne.brayton - a gmail address.
Posted by: DuWayne | July 29, 2010 9:42 AM
"How can you be sure I know what I'm talking about? Because I named a stick! It all makes sense now, don't it?"
Shinn's post @128 leads me to think he's just playing at being a poe. Probably amusing himself by, ironically, playing provocateur. Rather childish, if that's what's going on. But the only remaining alternatives are a deep deep stupidity or a mental illness.
Posted by: James Hanley | July 29, 2010 9:47 AM
Think I'm a fascist? Well, maybe so; if you walk into my neighborhood and I don't know you, I will ask what your business here is and if you don't explain to my satisfaction what it is then the result will be either you are rebuffed or I am neutralised.
You are not permitted to interfere with my commerce or tranquility unless you establish I am interfering in yours. If that's fascist, then so I am. I call it simple.
Posted by: Kevin Shinn | July 29, 2010 9:51 AM
Noise ordinance? Disturbing the peace? Within a stone's throw of a Rob Zombie concert?
Right. Nobody's gonna be able to hear that music what with all the protesting going on... It's gonna ruin the concert for everyone.
Posted by: Heretic | July 29, 2010 9:56 AM
What justification have we to rebuke or disturb a merchant, a manufacturer, a production concern such as BP-Amoco, in their going about their affairs? Any true adherent of liberty will say "very little", actually.
They should be permitted to go about their business as they see fit... excepting the extent to which they disturb or damage the tranquility and the commerce of the rest of us.
I recall the economists use the phrase "negative externalities."
Of course if we people allow the "Citizens United" ruling stand, we'll be breathing and eating negative externalities and nothing but for the rest of our days.
Posted by: Kevin Shinn | July 29, 2010 10:19 AM
Ahhh, Kevin, you ruined it by not staying on topic. Per your comment @122 about scientists jumping to conclusions, the hypothesis is that you know little about how the First Amendment has been interpreted, and the commenters here have provided much evidence pointing to its validity.
I was looking forward to your presenting some evidence in support of your argument (even just a link to the precedence [sic] that you claimed), but instead you seem to have gone for the Gish Gallop approach.
Posted by: Walt | July 29, 2010 10:42 AM
Kevin Shinn, short form: "Eating shit disturbs my tranquility, so I don't do it without being forced. Fight 'Citizens United.'"
Posted by: Kevin Shinn | July 29, 2010 10:56 AM
Oh! Oh! One more thing: "Read Subliminal Seduction."
Posted by: Kevin Shinn | July 29, 2010 11:14 AM
"sometimes an atheist can be just as much an asshole as anyone else"
I read this as an implication that atheists are usually not assholes and nonatheists are usually assholes. That's a pretty f**ked up view of people.
Posted by: Buffoon | July 29, 2010 11:28 AM
Posted by: Aaron | July 29, 2010 11:31 AM
Ed, I was just trying to read the latest ScienceBlogs feed and this popped up. It's offensive and if you don't stop, I'm afraid I'm going to have to call the police.
Posted by: Twewi | July 29, 2010 11:53 AM
Buffoon said:
Atheists don't generally go up to people on the street and lecture them about how there is no god, whereas street preachers and religious protesters are common. Pretty sure that's what Ed meant.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 29, 2010 11:59 AM
Wow, you are truly insane. Care to answer my question?
Posted by: DaveL | July 29, 2010 12:05 PM
I like that one.
Posted by: Owen | July 29, 2010 12:48 PM
Was the cop an asshole? Sure sounds like it.
Was the seizure of the camera legal? Was the public/private property 1st amendment stuff legal? Me not know.
Should Ed just pull the plug on Kevin Thinskinned? FUCKING-A-TWEETY!
Posted by: democommie | July 29, 2010 12:49 PM
"There's a point at which such skepticism crosses over into lunacy."
And there's a point at which tolerance crosses over into complicity.
We are not saying the video is false; we are simply saying that the Right Wing Media has surrendered its right to be taken seriously.
When this story is vetted by a media figure or institution that is interested in truth, then I will leap on the bandwagon with you and give this idiot cop the brow-beating he deserves.
But for dog's sake, let us report our own flaws, like any respectable media; let some left-wing liberal blog break the story. Let us stop paying attention to the rabble-rousing bullies in the corner.
Posted by: Yahzi | July 29, 2010 1:48 PM
Ask yourself this question: Is there anything that might be in the context of the tape, something that might have been edited out, that could possibly make those three things that I highlighted as wrong okay for the officer to do? The answer is no.
Actually, Art already did that at @24. It is not insane to suggest the RWM faked the whole thing. I happen to believe that is not true in this case, but the fact remains that the mere suggestion is not insane.
Again, if you had cited any other source than the RWM, I would have been right there with you. I understand you can't stop yourself from reading the RWM - in fact, I'm glad you do, so I don't have to - but please, stop citing them as a source.
Not because they are wrong in this case, but because they don't deserve the respect anymore. If people don't suffer the consequences of their actions, they won't change. And the consequences of repeatedly lying should be shunning.
Posted by: Yahzi | July 29, 2010 1:56 PM
@125 Michael Heath:
The only possibility I can think of is if the cameraman was being arrested, and telling him to put down the camera was incident to the arrest. I’m not saying I think that’s what did happen – but I can’t rule out the possibility based on the evidence available so far.
@ 133 Kevin the Troll/Poe/Off His Meds:
So in your world, assaulting innocent bystanders on a public street is okay, but shouting at someone is “provocative.” Forgive us – I don’t think we realized you were posting from the Mirror Universe.
@147 Yahzi:
I think most everyone here shares yoru opinion of WND's credibility. But leaping to the “It Must Be Faked!” excuse with no supporting evidence, just because Ed happened to see the story on WND first? When 2 minutes with Google turns up other media outlets covering the same story, including the Sheriff’s Office confirming the basic facts? Yes, that is insane.
Posted by: WScott | July 29, 2010 3:26 PM
Kevin Shinn #133:
If I were to pass through your neighbourhood for any reason whatsoever, I have the perfect right to do that - and I am not required to answer to you in any way, shape or form for doing so. If you were to attempt to stop me and ask what I was doing there, I would have every right to completely ignore you. The only exception to that would be if my journey didn't just take me into your neighbourhood, but actually onto your property.
So, yes, saying that I have no right to even walk down a public street if you, personally, don't want me to walk down that particular street without answering to you does make you a fascist.
Posted by: Zmidponk | July 29, 2010 5:45 PM
I'm not saying Abbie never broke a law, by the way; and I sure can't say it of myself.
I say if he ever did it in service of the protestation, he did it out of my sight, and more to the point: he preached lawfulness as a central principle of our tactics as well as our strategy.
And yes, he did teach us that when the kicking starts we find a curb and tuck our back against it.
Posted by: Kevin Shinn | July 29, 2010 6:06 PM
Yahzi,
Of course the video could have been faked. But you're making the assumption that a fake is more likely than the alternative, when the alternative is that a cop did violate a Christian's rights, and the WND jumped all over it. Now think about that, step by step.
Step 1: How plausible is it that a cop would violate Christians' rights? Well quite recently Ed has posted two or three pieces about Christians being denied the right to witness at a Muslim festival in Michigan, so clearly it's well within the realm of plausibility.
Step 2: How plausible is it that the WND would report such a thing if they got wind of it? Obviously the answer is that everyone related to WND would get super-stiffies (even the women) at the thought of being able to report real actual oppression of a Christian. There's no effing chance in hell that they would pass this up.
So step 2 is not just plausible, but a certainty. And step 1 is neither implausible nor, it seems, particularly improbable.
The alternative, your instinctive explanation, is not impossible, but it's certainly less plausible than the above. Occam's razor, Mr. Y. Parsimony. The person making the less plausible claim--in this case you--is the one who bears the heavier burden of proof. But you've treated your suspicion as though it was in fact a type of evidence. Sigh.
Posted by: James Hanley | July 29, 2010 6:13 PM
Specifically, the spine.
Posted by: Kevin Shinn | July 29, 2010 6:23 PM
By the way, I shoot pool; also better than you (and Abbie, sad enough to say).
Posted by: Kevin Shinn | July 29, 2010 11:09 PM
Worse than and beyond fascist: Should you find yourself commercing through my neighborhood, which generally goes undisturbed beyond a friendly "Hullo!", and you're walking with your head down? Oh, that's too bad, you just bought a lecture.
If you make the mistake of stopping at my hail, then you receive what is essentially an upbraiding regarding the importance of always scanning your surroundings and being alert!
Posted by: Kevin Shinn | July 31, 2010 10:57 AM
I'm fire with if then statements, fellow scientists. Remember Teddy.
Posted by: Kevin Shinn | July 31, 2010 11:10 AM
Did i say "fire" I meant to say rife. Dang dyslexia.
Posted by: Kevin Shinn | July 31, 2010 11:12 AM
The rights of the christians were not violated. If a person or business entity is leasing a space, they have the authority to eject anyone they choose from that space under penalty of arrest for trespassing.
Speaking as a police officer, I think he should have acted in a more objective manner in escorting the people off the property. I have no problem with him being verbally forceful but arguing with the people on matters of religion was not appropriate under color of law. If I were to do that on duty, I would be in violation of my department's policy prohibiting conduct unbecoming of an officer. However, the inflammatory comments made by the officer were preceded by a break in the more or less otherwise continuous footage. That makes me question the context of what was said and makes me wonder what he was responding to.
Posted by: Jase | August 13, 2010 7:25 PM