-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Cellphones blocked in SF to hinder transit protest
- Thread starter quest7
- Start date
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
It is costly to keep us safe.
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
And it only applies to the government. Something often forgotten. Or perhaps unlearned to begin with. It also applies during times of war, but there are national security issues at play, too. So protest away, they do not care about you one darn but unless you become nut bar crazy and want to violently overthrow the government, that is.
I recall a story about a crossword puzzle designer that mentioned "Fat Boy" and "Little Boy" was mentioned in the same puzzle and the government immediately took an interest.
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
You tried to tie something important into a minor inconvenience. You think blocking a cell phone is a grand conspiracy against you and your version of the constitution. You quoted something that does not apply and you said you can’t quite the constitution or dire things will happen to you.
Frisco
=Luceat Lux Vestra=
A few signs, some friends, a bit of (fill in the blank) to smoke.. heck yeah..
"Power to the people!"
I mean 
<------- hippy smiley buttonA few signs, some friends, a bit of (fill in the blank) to smoke.. heck yeah..
"Power to the people!"
It's a lack of smarts, the world is moving towards Idiocracy. And it's sad, but hopefully I'll be dead by the time everything goes to "The Jersey Shore" channel.
noah way
Android Enthusiast
Eisenhower warned of the military industrial complex in 1961. Current wars in the Middle East are for control of energy resources (Iraqi Oil, Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline). Previous covert and military actions (Operation Ajax, etc.) going back more than a half century have been about access to and control of strategic resources.
To deny any of this and live under the illusion that 4% of the world's population (the US) requires about 50% of the global military spending for "defense" is absurd.
noah way
Android Enthusiast
Back in the day there was a draft and a good chance that your ass would be sent off to Nam. We could use the draft again, it would stop the wars pretty damn quick.
Crude
Android Expert
LOL, that's an awesome movie.
noah way
Android Enthusiast
In regard to freedom of speech on BART:
BART is a government run and publicly financed. As such, it is pretty clear that constitutional issues apply.
"in 1957, the Legislature formed the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, comprising the five counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo. At this time, the District was granted a taxing power of five cents per $100 of assessed valuation. It also had authority to levy property taxes to support a general obligation bond issue ...
voters approved a $792 million bond issue to finance a 71.5 mile high-speed transit system, consisting of 33 stations serving 17 communities in the three counties."
History of BART
BART is a government run and publicly financed. As such, it is pretty clear that constitutional issues apply.
"in 1957, the Legislature formed the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, comprising the five counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo. At this time, the District was granted a taxing power of five cents per $100 of assessed valuation. It also had authority to levy property taxes to support a general obligation bond issue ...
voters approved a $792 million bond issue to finance a 71.5 mile high-speed transit system, consisting of 33 stations serving 17 communities in the three counties."
History of BART
No, I don't. Blocking cellphones are completely within the right of the government, because the protest was not legal. I am sorry if you can not accept that, but that has always been my position. As for the DOI, the law states that using the DOI as a way to undermine the authorthy of the government is a seditious act.
The law says that any talk by two or more individuals about undermining the authority is a seditious act. The protests of the BART transit system, is illegal. They have the right to do anything to bring it down.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
Those who can not I'm all on board. Those who will not hell to the no. Those who would not I think is optional.
Freedom of speech only applies when you are legally allowed to use it. You can not yell fire in a theater, bomb on a plane, and talk about killing the president of the united states.
The minute the police determine that the protest created a public safety issue and interfered with government function, the protest was illegal. That is by law, sorry but you can protest, just not illegally. If you want to legally protest, get a permit, selected a place and time, pay for the security and police time and knock yourself out.
From the top of my head? March 28, 2010. Hutaree milita, adrian, michgan.
Septerber 11 2005, Laura Berg was arrested for sedition. The exact words that led her to be arrested:
October 1 1995, Omar Rahman, arrested and convicted of only seditious conspiracy.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
None of that was going on here. The protest had not even started.
The protest had not even started. How do you determine that a protest creates a public safety issue when it's not even going on? Also, you're not required to get a permit to protest in San Francisco. Just saying.
They are accused of having plans in place to kill a police officer and then attack the funeral in an attempt to start a civil war. This is not a case of simply exercising their free speech rights. They were armed and had an attack plan in place with the goal of overthrowing the government. If the accusations are true, how is that not sedition?
The VA has since apologized to Berg and said they over reacted.
Ah, the Blind Sheik. Planned bombings all over NYC. Was involved in planning the 1993 WTC bombings. But it shouldn't be illegal to plan violent acts apparently. I can plan someone's murder all I want, but until I act the authorities shouldn't be able to do anything.
lordofthereef
Android Expert
Convenient that only the last example, out of three, is quoted here...
There rest is the government saying they "messed up". The point? They have the power to do it. I think THAT is the argument at hand, no? Something can be illegal today. THe fact that people aren't getting arrested for it on a daily basis doesn't change legalities.
D
Dark Jedi
Guest
This thread isn't about those two places now is it? Plus compare apples to apples. What happened over there was for freedom and rights. This transit thing was to just cause chaos it served no real purpose for anyone but to say yeah we really stuck it to the man . We showed them. I guess in the end the man showed them.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
Convenient that only the last example, out of three, is quoted here...
I quoted all three examples you gave. I'm not going to rehash them.
It's purpose what to protest perceived police brutality. Whether that is a legit beef or not is a different discussion. Regardless of whether the beef is legit, they still had every right in the world to protest.
D
Dark Jedi
Guest
Then protest at the police station then. Why at a transit place? That's like being fired from McDonald and protesting your termination in front of wal-mart.
Actually half right, conspiracy to commit murder requires two people, but you can be charged with plotting to commit murder, which just requires a willful intent (mens rea) of one person. If the police get a search warrant for your house, and find detailed information on killing your spouse sitting on the coffee table, you will be charged with plotting to kill your spouse, even if the crime is 100% fictional.
Conspiracy requires two minds, plotting only requires one. Plotting is considered a "mens rea" of law, which is usually included after the crime, but has been used to prevent crime. If you tell someone you are going to kill them, "mens rea". If someone finds a detailed murder, "mens rea". All they have to do is prove intent, not ability or need.
Here is some free advice, when the police says no, don't even think about it.
Frisco
=Luceat Lux Vestra=
That "thank you" I just issued is for the part of your post there addressing me and elaborating on the conspiracy stuff.
Your remark to A.Non, however, I disagree with. I don't believe in lawlessness in general, of course, but the police must be protested against from time to time in order to set into motion changes which benefit society.
I agree that it seldom works, and sadly less so now than back when we first saw police riots in Chicago, San Francisco and other cities where protest was seen then as criminal acts. Mayor Daley (the old one) would be proud of what Syria is doing, for example, and would likely say so.
Your remark to A.Non, however, I disagree with. I don't believe in lawlessness in general, of course, but the police must be protested against from time to time in order to set into motion changes which benefit society.
I agree that it seldom works, and sadly less so now than back when we first saw police riots in Chicago, San Francisco and other cities where protest was seen then as criminal acts. Mayor Daley (the old one) would be proud of what Syria is doing, for example, and would likely say so.
I agree with legal protests, but once a police officer tells you "stop" or "no", you better stop and desist. The current protests are over the killing of a homeless man that refused to stop and desist, he was shot and killed by police after they told him to stop and desist. When a police officer tells you stop and desist, you better do it, or be killed.
The current protestors have been told to stop and desist.
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
Not at all clear by any means. It will take a SCOTUS decision to decide. And it must happen quickly before we elect another liberal.
Lots of places where your