Thank God For Dead Soldiers

[CaneBrain 95]

Unless you use a racial or gay slur and it becomes a "Hate Crime".

I believe in having separate law for race and sexuality for discrimination cases (for obv reasons) but hate crimes are dumb. Crimes are crimes no matter the motive.

[colonel Feathers 5]

Maybe then if the police refuse to protect them, or make them pay for the protection, might stifle them somewhat.Since I didnt read the ruling please correct me if im wrong. I assume the distance these jerks were from the burial site did not play into the ruling.So the SC just opened the door for these people to do this directly in front of the grave, if they are on public property, no?Also, any local ordinance passed that kept them a certain distance away, must now be unconstitutional.I suspect that the fact that they were a good distance away gave cover for the court to rule this way,I couldnt see this being an 8-1 ruling if they were on the sidewalk in front of the church, or next to the grave.

[colonel Feathers 5]

it is. the threshold is pretty high though. this doesn't come close under the legal standard.

Please give an example, where inflicting emotional distress is greater, than taunting a family who only wants to bury their son.

[colonel Feathers 5]

it is. the threshold is pretty high though. this doesn't come close under the legal standard.

Please give an example, where inflicting emotional distress is greater, than taunting a family who only wants to bury their son.

[colonel Feathers 5]

it is. the threshold is pretty high though. this doesn't come close under the legal standard.

Please give an example, where inflicting emotional distress is greater, than taunting a family who only wants to bury their son.

[ezelisko 0]

As much as it sucks, that is the correct ruling by the SC. Trust me, I don't appreciate these people as much as the next logical person, but we can't restrict what they are saying in that sense. However, 48/50 states are passing laws against openly protesting to military funerals by restricting the distance they can protest. Also, people are standing up for what they think is right in the matter. Honestly, I think that they are causing people to unite under the United States and speak up against what they feel is wrong. It just makes my resolve and the resolve of others (probably) to serve and recognize the ones who serve for our country. Granted, the people might be screwed up three ways from sunday, but you will always have people like them. It's just a fact of nature.

[colonel Feathers 5]

As much as it sucks, that is the correct ruling by the SC. Trust me, I don't appreciate these people as much as the next logical person, but we can't restrict what they are saying in that sense. However, 48/50 states are passing laws against openly protesting to military funerals by restricting the distance they can protest. Also, people are standing up for what they think is right in the matter. Honestly, I think that they are causing people to unite under the United States and speak up against what they feel is wrong. It just makes my resolve and the resolve of others (probably) to serve and recognize the ones who serve for our country. Granted, the people might be screwed up three ways from sunday, but you will always have people like them. It's just a fact of nature.

I guess if a soldier is down with the ruling, who am I to argue.But I dont know how localities can pass an ordinance infringing on their constitutional rights.By keeping them a certain distance away.Im sure these animals will test it, and based on this ruling, how can they lose?

[CaneBrain 95]

Please give an example, where inflicting emotional distress is greater, than taunting a family who only wants to bury their son.

killing or raping one family member in front of another.

[colonel Feathers 5]

killing or raping one family member in front of another.

What? That would be the charge? Inflicting emotional distress!!

[brvheart 1,752]

Please give an example, where inflicting emotional distress is greater, than taunting a family who only wants to bury their son.

killing or raping one family member in front of another.

What? That would be the charge? Inflicting emotional distress!!

This was funny.

[CaneBrain 95]

What? That would be the charge? Inflicting emotional distress!!

No, slow person.They would be charged with the crime of rape or murder. But the family member would also be able to sue them for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Same if a guy beat up someone's mother in front of them. The mother can sue for assault and battery and the witnessing son can sue for IIED.Try and keep up.

[colonel Feathers 5]

No, slow person.They would be charged with the crime of rape or murder. But the family member would also be able to sue them for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Same if a guy beat up someone's mother in front of them. The mother can sue for assault and battery and the witnessing son can sue for IIED.Try and keep up.

iSNT that kinda like tacking on a jaywalking charge to a deadly bank robbery, to insure some type of conviction?

[vbnautilus 48]

iSNT that kinda like tacking on a jaywalking charge to a deadly bank robbery, to insure some type of conviction?

No, it isn't like that at all.

[CaneBrain 95]

iSNT that kinda like tacking on a jaywalking charge to a deadly bank robbery, to insure some type of conviction?

No, one is a civil matter and one is a criminal matter.Like how OJ was found innocent of criminal charges but guilty on civil charges and had to pay the Goldman family a bunch of money.Or how if a burglar beat up your mother in front you.....you would both have a different civil claim.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

iSNT that kinda like tacking on a jaywalking charge to a deadly bank robbery, to insure some type of conviction?

I don't think you can buy ensurance for something like that.

[colonel Feathers 5]

No, one is a civil matter and one is a criminal matter.Like how OJ was found innocent of criminal charges but guilty on civil charges and had to pay the Goldman family a bunch of money.Or how if a burglar beat up your mother in front you.....you would both have a different civil claim.

I guess I just dont get the law. If someone kills a family member, Im more interested in having him killed, than cutting me a check for disrupting my karma that day.

[CaneBrain 95]

I guess I just dont get the law. If someone kills a family member, Im more interested in having him killed, than cutting me a check for disrupting my karma that day.

But you can have both!I keep telling you: IIED has a high threshold and only applies in a narrow range of circumstances. There are variations in different states but that's how it is.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

killing or raping one family member in front of another.

See now. You're missing his point, I think on purpose. You acknowledged that Inflicting Emotional Distress is Illegal. He wants to know when this threshold would be reached, if not in this case. He believes that someone exercising Free Speech can cross that threshold.Are you saying that the only time that Inflicting Emotional Distress crosses the line of Legality is when an even more heinous crime has been committed? It can't be a primary act?

[CaneBrain 95]

See now. You're missing his point, I think on purpose. You acknowledged that Inflicting Emotional Distress is Illegal. He wants to know when this threshold would be reached, if not in this case. He believes that someone exercising Free Speech can cross that threshold.Are you saying that the only time that Inflicting Emotional Distress crosses the line of Legality is when an even more heinous crime has been committed? It can't be a primary act?

Well, it's not "illegal". It's a civil issue. He asked for more severe cases and I gave him the classics. In some states, they won't allow recovery for IIED without some underlying physical injury (from a primary act). In other states, IIED can come from a primary act but even that threshold is way above picketing a funeral. Usually the hallmarks include: repeated harassment, outrageous behavior beyond the norm, targeting a protected class like the young, the disabled or the elderly and some others. The actions here meet some of those characteristics (particularly the outrageous behavior part) but being so far removed from the funeral site, etc, the justices would have been writing new law to turn this into IIED.I'm just glad someone is paying the legal costs of the guy who lost.

[colonel Feathers 5]

Then what about my other point. If what they are doing is constitutional, how can they be forced to stay a distance away.And if they can be forced to maintain a distance, why cant they be forced to stage their protest in a garage?

[timwakefield 68]

Then what about my other point. If what they are doing is constitutional, how can they be forced to stay a distance away.And if they can be forced to maintain a distance, why cant they be forced to stage their protest in a garage?

Because the law says they can be forced to stay a distance away. This does not infringe on their first amendment right to protest. The act of a peaceful protest on public property is legal. A law creating a zone of no protests around a funeral does not infringe on that law. There are multitudes of laws that dictate where and when you can and can't stand, walk, or drive in certain places. The reason they can't be forced to stage their protest in a garage is, first of all, that garages are rarely public property. Protesting on some random private property without consent would be illegal. Second of all, and more importantly, the laws that create buffer zones around funerals have to be reasonable. If they were unreasonable then they could and would be challenged in court, and would be struck down. So what is reasonable? Well that's fairly discretionary - states have to decide individually. If they set up a 3 mile buffer zone, it would be struck down as unreasonable. How do I know they can legally, constitutionally, be forced to stay some distance away? Because the damn Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said so in his decision.

[hblask 1]

Because the law says they can be forced to stay a distance away. This does not infringe on their first amendment right to protest. The act of a peaceful protest on public property is legal. A law creating a zone of no protests around a funeral does not infringe on that law. There are multitudes of laws that dictate where and when you can and can't stand, walk, or drive in certain places. The reason they can't be forced to stage their protest in a garage is, first of all, that garages are rarely public property. Protesting on some random private property without consent would be illegal. Second of all, and more importantly, the laws that create buffer zones around funerals have to be reasonable. If they were unreasonable then they could and would be challenged in court, and would be struck down. So what is reasonable? Well that's fairly discretionary - states have to decide individually. If they set up a 3 mile buffer zone, it would be struck down as unreasonable. How do I know they can legally, constitutionally, be forced to stay some distance away? Because the damn Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said so in his decision.

This is like the "protest zones" they create around political conventions now. I heard the protest zone in St. Paul was not even in view of the Excel Center -- and that's a huge building that you can see from a big chunk of downtown. It seems to me the courts gave too much leeway there, and would probably continue to do so for military funerals.

[brvheart 1,752]

How much liability would cities have if they made their zones... just a little bit unreasonable? Would they be open to financial liability of some kind? Or just... oops.... we'll change it up a little next time.?

[Balloon guy 158]

This is like the "protest zones" they create around political conventions now. I heard the protest zone in St. Paul was not even in view of the Excel Center -- and that's a huge building that you can see from a big chunk of downtown. It seems to me the courts gave too much leeway there, and would probably continue to do so for military funerals.

Not true, I was there, the windows that got broken by the 'peace demonstrators was within a block of the convention.The street in front was closed, and the adjacent parking area was being used by journalist ( they also let CNN have a tent) There was literally no room to give 'protesters' a place, other than the march that they kicked me out of for wearing a Republican shirt. ( YEAAA Free speech )

[CaneBrain 95]

How much viability would cities have it they made their zones... just a little bit unreasonable? Would they be open to financial liability of some kind? Or just... oops.... we'll change it up a little next time.?

the latter. It would be difficult (impossible?) to prove that not being able to protest close enough hurt you monetarily.There has to be some sort of measurable damages to incur financial liability.