Citizen Assaulted at Kitzhaber Event

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Do you agree, though, that both parties (and/or people who do it for their party affiliation) deny rights to opposing views?

I'd like to jump and say, "absolutely", but in all honesty I don't think that's the case. To be sure, throughout history it would be, but not the last 10-12 years. It seems to me the left is becoming increasingly militant and voter fraud, infiltrating the Tea Party to make them look stupid (when they do a good job of it themselves, IMHO), intimidation, trying to silence the right... is becoming commonplace. I'm sure there are some discrepancies on the right, but they seem substantially fewer than the left at present. In Portland, there were more then 60 cases of liberals ramming their vehicles into ones that had McCain stickers on them. They apologized, but stated they did it for political reasons. They even started a person's house on fire in Portland because he had a McCain sign in his front lawn. People could have been burned to death (barfo, insert one of your tasteless jokes here). In Washington, a governors was thrown- and liberal judges took an active part. In MN, there are some pretty solid looking allegations of a US Senatorial race thrown by liberals- but the liberal federal administration will "study the matter". I could go on and on with dozens of examples- and almost all from the left.

I have deep ethical concerns about our country right now. We no longer have free, open and honest elections- and that is something I never thought would ever occur in this country. In time, I am sure discrepancies from the right may become more common place, but at this time the left is the new face of hate in this country.

And, as a moderate and often democrat voter, I have been shocked by what I've seen.

 

[barfo]

In Portland, there were more then 60 cases of liberals ramming their vehicles into ones that had McCain stickers on them. They apologized, but stated they did it for political reasons.

Uhm... link? That sounds to me like utter horseshit, and google turns up nothing (other than 1 guy in Tennessee who rammed a car with an Obama sticker).

They even started a person's house on fire in Portland because he had a McCain sign in his front lawn. People could have been burned to death (barfo, insert one of your tasteless jokes here).

Ok, how many tiny little people lived in the McCain sign that was burned? Note, sign, not house. What you wrote simply isn't true.

In Washington, a governors was thrown- and liberal judges took an active part.

Throwing governors can be very dangerous, especially if they are fat.

In MN, there are some pretty solid looking allegations of a US Senatorial race thrown by liberals- but the liberal federal administration will "study the matter". I could go on and on with dozens of examples- and almost all from the left.

You do go on and on, but what you write is rarely the truth.

I have deep ethical concerns about our country right now. We no longer have free, open and honest elections- and that is something I never thought would ever occur in this country. In time, I am sure discrepancies from the right may become more common place, but at this time the left is the new face of hate in this country.

And, as a moderate and often democrat voter, I have been shocked by what I've seen.

You haven't "seen" anything. You just choose which lies to believe in and spread. Trust me, there are plenty of similar lies to believe in about the right, should you choose to.

barfo

 

[BGrantFan]

Lots of debate and uncertainty about what is supposedly an obvious case. I think the legal system should decide whether filming at a political public event is protected by the First Amendment. I'm still not convinced that the hosts of this public event can interfere in the manner that they did.

 

[BGrantFan]

KOIN 6 videotaped the entire event. I wonder if their cameraperson got punched and harassed?

 

[Minstrel]

Lots of debate and uncertainty about what is supposedly an obvious case.

The fact that you keep insisting that he had first amendment rights, with no evidence for why a church qualifies under a protection from government infringement, doesn't make it a debate and lots of uncertainty.

I mean, I could keep insisting, over and over, that Brandon Roy is an NFL player. That doesn't mean there's a lot of debate and uncertainty as to what professional sports league Roy plays in.

Quantity of objections doesn't make a debate. Quality (that is, actual evidence) of objections does.

I think the legal system should decide whether filming at a political public event is protected by the First Amendment.

Since the Bill of Rights was established to protect citizens from government (not other citizens), there's no reason why any court would rule about whether a church falls within the first amendment.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

KOIN 6 videotaped the entire event. I wonder if their cameraperson got punched and harassed?

Are you kidding?

Event organizers said they made it clear at the start of the event that only KOIN would be allowed to film the event.

 

[MARIS61]

It's up to you (or him) to prove that the church's actions fall within the purview of an amendment about government action.

The video did that already showing a clearly unprovoked and inexcusable assault and battery by the church bouncer.

THAT's illegal anywhere in America, no matter who owns the property.

 

[julius]

KOIN 6 videotaped the entire event. I wonder if their cameraperson got punched and harassed?

considering they were given the right to video the event, I don't see how that is a good point to make.

 

[julius]

The video clearly did that already showing a clearly unprovoked and inexcusable assault and battery by the church bouncer.

THAT's illegal anywhere in America, no matter who owns the property.

Not sure why you brought that up. No one is debating that.

 

[Minstrel]

The video clearly did that already showing a clearly unprovoked and inexcusable assault and battery by the church bouncer.

THAT's illegal anywhere in America, no matter who owns the property.

That's nice. The discussion was about whether he had a "first amendment right" to video tape the proceedings against the wishes of the owners/administrators.

And the answer is that he doesn't.

 

[BGrantFan]

The guy who assaulted the videographer is funded by Portland taxpayers.

BPI was initially funded by a $100,000 grant from the City of Portland’s general fund and an additional $50,000 grant from Portland Public Schools. It operates out of a vinyl-sided house turned makeshift office on Northeast Dekum Street. But its organizational base is African-American churches.

Charles McGhee is his name. I imagine he's due for a lawsuit, and an explanation as to why his tax-based organization is assaulting members of the public.

 

[BGrantFan]

Are you kidding?

How did they make this clear? Was it within their rights? Did the church accept money from KOIN for these rights? If so, their tax-exempt status needs to be called into question for selling rights to a public political event. If KOIN did not buy the rights, then their cameras should have been shut down as well.

 

[BGrantFan]

If this was a Kitzhaber public event, why are there announced sponsors? Who is profiting from the sponsorships?

 

[MARIS61]

That's nice. The discussion was about whether he had a "first amendment right" to video tape the proceedings against the wishes of the owners/administrators.

And the answer is that he doesn't.

Read the f'ing THREAD TITLE: Citizen Assaulted at Kitzhaber Event

Read the OP's 1st post: Assault aside, why is Kitzhaber campaigning in a church?

I'm on topic, you're off as usual after completely changing the subject with your first post and ignoring the OP's question for 4 pages now.

Guess you're stumped.

 

[Minstrel]

Read the f'ing THREAD TITLE: Citizen Assaulted at Kitzhaber Event

Read the OP's 1st post: Assault aside, why is Kitzhaber campaigning in a church?

I'm on topic, you're off as usual after completely changing the subject with your first post and ignoring the OP's question for 4 pages now.

Guess you're stumped.

Oh, MARIS...so full of outrage, not very good at focusing it.

The video produced multiple topics of interest. If you, personally, lacked interest in the particular one I was discussing, it makes more sense to not comment on it then to say something silly in response and then whine about how you really meant to talk about something else.

 

[MARIS61]

Oh, MARIS...so full of outrage, not very good at focusing it.

The video produced multiple topics of interest. If you, personally, lacked interest in the particular one I was discussing, it makes more sense to not comment on it then to say something silly in response and then whine about how you really meant to talk about something else.

These are the main topics the video produced:

1. The video showed a couple of church musclemen who followed orders to physically assault a man for peacefully and quietly taking pictures.

2. Nothing silly about a violent crime that can carry several years jail time as punishment, and possibly a lawsuit that could bankrupt the entire church.

3. The victim did mention several times that it was his right to film in this instance and place AND IF THE CHURCH HAD CALLED THE POLICE TO HAVE HIM REMOVED FOR TRESPASSING OR SOME OTHER COMPLAINT then the 1st amendment debate might be more than just a strawman here. They did not and so it is simply background noise to the bigger issue which you seem afraid to address.

They chose to follow Satan's path and so the main topics the video presents are the 3 above.

Maybe not enough blood to interest you? Maybe because it wasn't racially motivated?

If the thugs had been white and they dragged the cameraman behind a Buick for 20 miles would you still be ignoring the real issue and debating the 1st Amendment in it's place?

 

[MARIS61]

I give Kitzy no chance of re-election unless he publicly decries this violent attack in the next 48 hrs., which I doubt he will do. His entire campaign has been a total turnoff, as has Dudley's.

And that's scary as hell that a idiot like Dudley could soon have the opportunity to destroy Oregon.

 

[Minstrel]

These are the main topics the video produced:

3. The victim did mention several times that it was his right to film in this instance and place

So we're agreed that what I was discussing with BGrantFan was on topic. Your response to me, therefore, was fairly irrelevant to the discussion of whether it was his right to film.

I'm glad we're on the same page.

 

[MARIS61]

BTW, I'd fully support making attacks on journalists to impede their reporting the same punishment as for attacking a police officer doing his job.

Journalists are way more important to our personal and national security than policemen are.

 

[julius]

3. The victim did mention several times that it was his right to film in this instance and place AND IF THE CHURCH HAD CALLED THE POLICE TO HAVE HIM REMOVED FOR TRESPASSING OR SOME OTHER COMPLAINT then the 1st amendment debate might be more than just a strawman here. They did not and so it is simply background noise to the bigger issue which you seem afraid to address.

ignorance of the law is not a defense. It wasn't his 'right' to film anything. He was wrongly making declarations that it was his 1st amendment right, when it wasn't.

Plus, why, outside of trying to make a scene, would anyone keep recording? he was asked nicely, more than once, and told at the start it wasn't an acceptable act. So he was being defiant, and knowingly doing so.

Was he such a big fan of John that he wanted record it for posterity? Doubtful, as if he was I'm sure he would not have cried out 1st amendment rights, and said "I'm a fan of Kitzhaber, why can't I just record it?"

I find it hard to believe he didn't go there for the purpose of raising a ruckus, or finding something to use in an advertisement (where the person wouldn't have to pay KOIN (church too?) for the footage). His actions spoke loud.

the reaction spoke loud too, but it isn't a 1st amendment issue that he should be concerned about, but the assault. But he did provoke it, imho.

 

[MARIS61]

So we're agreed that what I was discussing with BGrantFan was on topic. Your response to me, therefore, was fairly irrelevant to the discussion of whether it was his right to film.

I'm glad we're on the same page.

Funny.

Him mentioning the 1st is no more relevant than what color his shirt was or if he had muffin tops for breakfast.

 

[MARIS61]

ignorance of the law is not a defense. It wasn't his 'right' to film anything. He was wrongly making declarations that it was his 1st amendment right, when it wasn't.

It's not illegal to say you have rights, nor is there any law against filming a political candidate in a public forum simply because the building is a church. He broke no law nor was he accused of breaking one.

Plus, why, outside of trying to make a scene, would anyone keep recording? he was asked nicely, more than once, and told at the start it wasn't an acceptable act. So he was being defiant, and knowingly doing so.

Because it's his job? Like KOIN TV he was filming to inform the voters what their candidate was saying and where he stands on the issues. And I for one applaud him for it.


I find it hard to believe he didn't go there for the purpose of raising a ruckus, or finding something to use in an advertisement (where the person wouldn't have to pay KOIN (church too?) for the footage). His actions spoke loud.

So you believe that's why KOIN TV was there filming? To raise a ruckus? Weak sauce.

the reaction spoke loud too, but it isn't a 1st amendment issue that he should be concerned about, but the assault. But he did provoke it, imho.

If you think he provoked a physical attack by his actions or his whispered words you have less knowledge of the law than our Jack Russel Terrier.

My replies are the ones in bold.

 

[Minstrel]

Him mentioning the 1st is no more relevant than what color his shirt was or if he had muffin tops for breakfast.

But much more amusing than the colour of his shirt or what he ate for breakfast.

My observation was a casual comment. The OP wanted to have a longer discussion about it, so I obliged, being the accommodating person that I am.

 

[BGrantFan]

Minstrel is a Democrat who only believes in the Constitution when his party is harmed.

Thanks Minstrel. Your posts in this thread told me so! You're a fascist. Got it.

 

[Minstrel]

Minstrel is a Democrat who only believes in the Constitution when his party is harmed.

Thanks Minstrel. Your posts in this thread told me so! You're a fascist. Got it.

Don't be a little Johnny Lash-Out.

 

[BGrantFan]

But much more amusing than the colour of his shirt or what he ate for breakfast.

My observation was a casual comment. The OP wanted to have a longer discussion about it, so I obliged, being the accommodating person that I am.

Not really, though. You still have not proven your point, and the fact that a news agency was allowed exclusive rights to film a public event held inside of a church brings up some troubling questions.

 

[BGrantFan]

Don't be a little Johnny Lash-Out.

I call them like I see them.

 

[Minstrel]

Not really, though. You still have not proven your point

Only proven it to people who can read the amendment.

and the fact that a news agency was allowed exclusive rights to film a public event held inside of a church brings up some troubling questions.

What troubling questions would those be?

 

[Minstrel]

I call them like I see them.

Or you temper tantrum when confronted by facts you don't like. I think we're on the same page.

 

[MARIS61]

But much more amusing than the colour of his shirt or what he ate for breakfast.

My observation was a casual comment. The OP wanted to have a longer discussion about it, so I obliged, being the accommodating person that I am.

Fair enough, but why attack me for staying on topic?

And I AM interested in your views of the bigger issues of:

1. Assault and battery on a journalist by agents of a government supported entity (the church) in order to conceal what was promised to them by a candidate for governor.

2. Why is a candidate for governor holding a "public forum" in a church? Seems there might be some Constitutional issues in that suspicious act.