Westboro Church Protest Mega-thread

[GAP]

It is these very rights that have allowed this group to do what they do. The community has the "right" to protect itself from this group flaunting a view that is going to hurt (emotionally) members of their community.

 

[Edward Campbell]

It is these very rights that have allowed this group to do what they do. The community has the "right" to protect itself from this group flaunting a view that is going to hurt (emotionally) members of their community.

The "community" took some action, about which I have no opinion. But the armed servants of the state are, as they must be, held to a different, higher standard - and they failed.

 

[mariomike]

Just blow them away with a high power fire hose. Most of them could use a good shower anyway.

I read that suggestion a few years ago. I don't think they use fire hoses for that purpose anymore. "We don't train fire hoses on people in San Francisco." SFFD. 
I have seen video of foam and water cannons used in Europe:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=644_1172713530

edit

 

[jwtg]

Is a preemptive strike always immoral?

Reasonable certainty of hostility allows for reasonable preemptive action on the behalf of the perceived target of said hostility, according to many ethicists.  You and I know ethics are hardly black and white.

I agree that what the LEOs did was dishonest, but it may have also been the only reasonable thing they could have done to maintain the peace when they had reason to believe (based on precedent) that things could otherwise get ugly, without their intervention.

Hands down it was dishonest.  Was it necessary and justified? I'm undecided, despite my sentimentalism.  For now I will entertain the idea that is akin to preemptive strike (that resulted in nothing other than lost time/missed opportunity to ruin a fallen soldier's funeral) and I'm not sure whether or not I consider it ethical.  Kant would say it was not ethical.  I wonder, would utilitarian ethics (including the author of your quoted personal text, E. R. Campbell) justify this action?  The most good was done to the most people for the longest time, with the least damage occuring to anyone.  Is that not the principle of utility?  Food for thought.

EDIT: To be fair, I'm not saying John Stuart Mill would have condoned this behavior.  As a proponent of utilitarian ethics, I refer to him as a loose representative of a group (mainly consequentialist ethicists) that might be more sympathetic to doing what is necessary.

 

[Edward Campbell]

My comments in yellow

Is a preemptive strike always immoral?
No, there is a case for legitimate self defence. That case could be made for the family and some friends of the family.

Reasonable certainty of hostility allows for reasonable preemptive action on the behalf of the perceived target of said hostility, according to many ethicists.  You and I know ethics are hardly black and white.
Agreed, but by the aggrieved parties, not by the state.

I agree that what the LEOs did was dishonest, but it may have also been the only reasonable thing they could have done to maintain the peace when they had reason to believe (based on precedent) that things could otherwise get ugly, without their intervention.
So dishonest LEOs are acceptable to you? It sounds to me like being a little bit pregnant.

Hands down it was dishonest.  Was it necessary and justified? I'm undecided, despite my sentimentalism.  For now I will entertain the idea that is akin to preemptive strike (that resulted in nothing other than lost time/missed opportunity to ruin a fallen soldier's funeral) and I'm not sure whether or not I consider it ethical.  Kant would say it was not ethical.  I wonder, would utilitarian ethics (including the author of your quoted personal text, E. R. Campbell) justify this action?  The most good was done to the most people for the longest time, with the least damage occuring to anyone.  Is that not the principle of utility?  Food for thought.
I stand by my position: the LEOs were wrong and it is wrong to defend their actions.

 

[Container]

Some of these places have pretty militant populations. Perhaps the police attempted to inform of the WBC of the danger they faced and it fell on deaf ears. The only option to avoid what would most certainly end in a gigantic incident was to keep the protestors busy.

Of course I think its completely unacceptable.

But they work with lesser grounds than we do in Canada- if they had an incident happen and they suspected the "out of towners" they may actually have had the authority to round them up and interview them prior to clearing them.

In this particular state a few years ago if you were Canadian and ran a stop sign you could expect to spend up to three days in jail until it was determined you weren't a flight risk or you would pay your ticket because you were from another country.

I subscribe to the idea that the law never exists just for the sake of authority- if its riding the line of being an abuse it shouldnt be done. If it seems like a "clever" legal solution or creative use of your "powers" it will usually make you look like an *******. And the courts will usually agree with me.

If the state or the community was serious about it they would create similar bylaws and laws that limit access to funerals by all outside parties. creating a mourning buffer. You can be a douche- but do it over there.  My cousins are Marines- I would lose my mind if these folks showed up to their funeral- but I wouldnt do it as a cop.

 

[gcclarke]

I'm with Messieurs McKay and Cambell. The rule of law must be paramout. It is not illegal to be a complete jerk at (or near) a funeral. It is illegal to detain people without cause simply to prevent people from being a complete jerk at a funeral. Especially when said illegal act is done by the police. You know, those people who are supposed to be upholding the law?

Engaging in peaceful protest is one of the most important freedoms that we in western societies have. The fact that the cause that these people are protesting for / against is something that we find distasteful does not excuse members of the policy department from taking these actions to prevent them from the lawful expression of their freedom of speech.

 

[jwtg]

My comments in red

My comments in yellow

"Is a preemptive strike always immoral?
No, there is a case for legitimate self defence. That case could be made for the family and some friends of the family.
Reasonable certainty of hostility allows for reasonable preemptive action on the behalf of the perceived target of said hostility, according to many ethicists.  You and I know ethics are hardly black and white.
Agreed, but by the aggrieved parties, not by the state.
On behalf of the aggrieved parties?
I agree that what the LEOs did was dishonest, but it may have also been the only reasonable thing they could have done to maintain the peace when they had reason to believe (based on precedent) that things could otherwise get ugly, without their intervention.
So dishonest LEOs are acceptable to you? It sounds to me like being a little bit pregnant.As a rule, no.  LEOs deceive those they nail in sting operations all the time.  Undercover police work is an example of justified dishonesty for the sake of enforcing the law.  I do, however, recognize that this is very different than the situation we are presently discussing- I merely make the point that 'honesty' can be waived in the interest of police work in some circumstances.
Hands down it was dishonest.  Was it necessary and justified? I'm undecided, despite my sentimentalism.  For now I will entertain the idea that is akin to preemptive strike (that resulted in nothing other than lost time/missed opportunity to ruin a fallen soldier's funeral) and I'm not sure whether or not I consider it ethical.  Kant would say it was not ethical.  I wonder, would utilitarian ethics (including the author of your quoted personal text, E. R. Campbell) justify this action?  The most good was done to the most people for the longest time, with the least damage occuring to anyone.  Is that not the principle of utility?  Food for thought.
I stand by my position: the LEOs were wrong and it is wrong to defend their actions.Fair enough.  I haven't taken a position.  My gut feeling is to be glad; however, my intellectual exploration of the ethical issues is nowhere near that simple.

Also, in Northern Ireland  every year the PSNI (Police Service of Northern Ireland) prevents protesters (Orange) from protesting in the area of Garvaghy Road.  They deny them their lawful right in the interest of preventing incidents like the troubles that Northern Ireland has known there for years.  I suppose this is also unethical?

DISCLAIMER:  Please bear in mind my knowledge of the situation in Northern Ireland comes from speaking to an Irishman who drove me down Garvaghy Road, where I saw painted curbs and tricolor flags everywhere proclaiming their Irish pride in the midst of a protestant-dominated area.  A truly enlightening cultural experience, however my knowledge is not from a textbook or research- it is from the word of mouth of an Irishman who explained it to me as we stood there and is thus subject to error due to human bias and interpretation.  Correct me if my facts are incorrect- I welcome it willingly.

 

[Container]

There are laws and rules in Ireland that cover off those instances.

Also UC operations by police are not even remotely similar to what is alleged here. Firstly, UC operators dont do their ops from a uniform that conveys authority and suggests that people are required to listen to their directions.

Secondly the actions of the operators, and any deception is tracked that they will answer in court as to whether its justified or not. Thirdly if they exceeded their authorities or acceptabel behaviors they will be liable. Deception is used in interviews as well but as soon as it shocks the conscience of the court it is unacceptable. Arresting people on no real grounds and keeping hold of the innocent citizen would most certainly shock the court.

Apples to oranges.

 

[jwtg]

My comments in yellow

There are laws and rules in Ireland that cover off those instances. Thank you for the clarification.  If you know this for a fact, could you direct us to a source?  What those laws are, what they entail?  Otherwise this remains hearsay.

Also UC operations by police are not even remotely similar to what is alleged here. Firstly, UC operators dont do their ops from a uniform that conveys authority and suggests that people are required to listen to their directions.

Secondly the actions of the operators, and any deception is tracked that they will answer in court as to whether its justified or not. Thirdly if they exceeded their authorities or acceptabel behaviors they will be liable. Deception is used in interviews as well but as soon as it shocks the conscience of the court it is unacceptable. Arresting people on no real grounds and keeping hold of the innocent citizen would most certainly shock the court.

Apples to oranges.Thank you for pointing out the differences I alluded to when I said 'I do, however, recognize that this is very different than the situation we are presently discussing- I merely make the point that 'honesty' can be waived in the interest of police work in some circumstances.'  I'm not saying that because police officers can be dishonest in situation A means it is okay for them to be dishonest in situation B.  I'm only responding to an absolute statement (about dishonest LEOs) with an exception to the rule, meaning that the statement as stated by E. R. Campbell is not satisfactory to me- it requires further qualifications which you listed in part.

From a consequentialist point of view, it is hard to view their actions as immoral.  From a Kantian/imperative point of view, it is hard to view their actions as moral.  From a legal point of view, does anybody know what Mississipi law states regarding holding people for questioning?  Can people be held and questioned and released without charges being pressed?  Certainly, this situation was more than likely done with no real suspicion of involvement in crime and that makes it immoral in the eyes of many, but can anyone with more knowledge than I WRT to law and police conduct expectations shed light on the legality of their actions?  Would they be subject to legal or just disciplinary action if they knowingly detained for questioning persons who were not associated with any crime? 

 

[Sapplicant]

Hindsight being 2020, and my imagination being what it is, I've managed to come up with this.

1. The police do nothing wrong, and have to investigate a series of VERY public aggrivated assaults causing grievous bodily harm, interview possibly hundreds, even thousands of witnesses, come up with nothing, deal with possible federal investigations, etc.

2. The police do nothing wrong, same deal, swap AA causing GHB with manslaughter.

3. The police take possible unconstitutional/illegal measures to prevent options 1 and 2 from happening.


So, who wants to be the chief of THAT dep't? It's so easy to comment looking in from thte outside, but, ummm, I can't think of a good cliche. Clusterf***.


In a perfect world, the WBC would not exist. Quel domage. I wish they'd hurry up and have a kool-aid party.

 

[Container]

My comments in yellow
From a consequentialist point of view, it is hard to view their actions as immoral.  From a Kantian/imperative point of view, it is hard to view their actions as moral.  From a legal point of view, does anybody know what Mississipi law states regarding holding people for questioning?  Can people be held and questioned and released without charges being pressed?  Certainly, this situation was more than likely done with no real suspicion of involvement in crime and that makes it immoral in the eyes of many, but can anyone with more knowledge than I WRT to law and police conduct expectations shed light on the legality of their actions?  Would they be subject to legal or just disciplinary action if they knowingly detained for questioning persons who were not associated with any crime?

Feel free to look through the Irish Constitution http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/Pdf%20files/Constitution%20of%20Ireland.pdf

"You may not hold a procession or meeting within one-half mile of the Oireachtas (Irish houses of parliament) when it has been prohibited by the Gardai or you have been asked to disperse."

Cram the "heresay" stuff. You were the one that introduced it.

It isnt about ethics. Its about law it is about society assigning duties and rules to how the duties are carried out. If they do not play by the rules they are not doing their jobs. The courts have said this type of deception is okay as without the criminal would be able to operate without fear of being caught. However, the courts have also said that I am not allowed to detain someone without cause. And I can detain them just by wearing a uniform and NOT telling them they can leave. The courts have decided that it is a normal reaction for most people to follow the direction of a police officer. So abusing that trust is an absolute no. By law. Not by ethics.

So as far as your question, in Canada, they would be subject to discipline and sanctions if they couldnt articulate good reason why they held everybody for questioning. In missisipi, like I said- they've held Canadians for 72 hours on stop signs.

 

[DexOlesa]

As I read it, the protesters were neither arrested nor detained. They were taken aside and questioned about possible involvement in a crime. If you read earlier in the article many suspicious things happened to the WBC vehicles etc. they would be required to be questioned as witnesses/ plaintiffs. You can choose to read it as "the police questioned these people for hours about nothing and then suddenly let them go" or you can see it as  "the Police questioned people about these occurrences around town, which they were involved in. In the end gathering enough information to know that the WBC was not responsible for any of it, letting them go. It took a chunk of time as it would, and they sadly missed their opportunity to protest at the funeral"

 

[Cdnleaf]

I'm with Messieurs McKay and Cambell. The rule of law must be paramout. It is not illegal to be a complete jerk at (or near) a funeral. It is illegal to detain people without cause simply to prevent people from being a complete jerk at a funeral. Especially when said illegal act is done by the police. You know, those people who are supposed to be upholding the law?

Engaging in peaceful protest is one of the most important freedoms that we in western societies have. The fact that the cause that these people are protesting for / against is something that we find distasteful does not excuse members of the policy department from taking these actions to prevent them from the lawful expression of their freedom of speech.

It will be interesting to read the results of the Former Chief Justice of Ontario Roy McMurtry review of police powers during the G20; and enactment of the Public Works Protection Act.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/ontario-to-probe-secret-law-g20-police-powers/article1718143/

Police have already been cleared by the SIU, though I remember reading that a private security firm contracted by the RCMP is being charged. 

 

[Container]

As I read it, the protesters were neither arrested nor detained. They were taken aside and questioned about possible involvement in a crime. If you read earlier in the article many suspicious things happened to the WBC vehicles etc. they would be required to be questioned as witnesses/ plaintiffs. You can choose to read it as "the police questioned these people for hours about nothing and then suddenly let them go" or you can see it as  "the Police questioned people about these occurrences around town, which they were involved in. In the end gathering enough information to know that the WBC was not responsible for any of it, letting them go. It took a chunk of time as it would, and they sadly missed their opportunity to protest at the funeral"

Being held for questioning, if they were not free to go about their business is detainment. Further to this you never HAVE to give a witness statement. And should somehow they be determined to be a material witness travel restrictions are usually the area and the procedure takes time and wouldnt be assigned just willy nilly to a group of protestors.

Edit for spelling.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Once again I see a whole lot of condemnation of law enforcement folks from a group of posters who would lose their friggin' minds if "we" roasted some part of the military on one flimsy story that doesn't seem to be gaining much traction...................for some reason I can't help but think you can all "hoop your foreheads".

 

[tomahawk6]

The Hartford Square an Old Miss message board sheds some light on this story. Also a couple of youtube links since the original link doesnt seem to be working. According to the message board none of the Phelps bunch were arrested. As for blocking their cars - I am 100% in favor of that. Protesting at the funeral of a service member  by a group claiming to be christians is pretty low in my book.

http://nafoom.yuku.com/topic/39495/This-will-bring-a-tear-to-your-eye

http://www.youtube.com/watch?f...&v=R6n08Z9495E#at=12

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ90wDX4C6A&feature=player_embedded

 

[57Chevy]

It is my understanding that the last will and testament of a person becomes law
after the death of the person.
Normally the funeral arrangements are outlined within that last will, so as such,
I think that both the demonstrators and the anti-demonstrators who both may be regarded
as exercising their fundamental freedom of rights are in effect actually breaking the law.
Officers of the Law are supposed to uphold the law, not engage in undermining it.
IMO The deceased has the right to be laid to rest in a peaceful manner and without consequence
from bystanders of any kind.

After the Tucson massacre, Arizona lawmakers passed a law that requires protesters to stay at least 300 feet away
from funerals 1 hour before the start, during, and 1 hour after the end of the funeral.

Perhaps other States will consider doing the same.

All in all, I think that's a good start, and perhaps fair for those who find the urge to exercise their rights in some
perverted sick way, and a Law that Officers will be able to enforce.

RIP to the fallen 

 

[cphansen]

Somehow we're arguing in circles.

We need to state what we're really aiming for, to allow the family to bury their fallen member with dignity, respect and love.

To do this we need to protect the venue of the funeral from known protestors without breaking the law ourselves. I would like to make a suggestion, setup a perimiter to stop disruptive influences with the police manning 2 checkpoints to allow people in or out. Disruptive influences should be told they're not welcome at the moment but they will be allowed access after a few hours.

I would suggest the perimeter be setup by the reserves or National Guard as a sign of respect for their fallen comrade. It could also be done as an aid to the civil power. The uniform should be dress blues or the equivalent.

Thia would stop the law enforcement agencies from breaking or bending the law out of sheer frustration. It would allow the military to show a final sign of respect and honour the fallen. It would allow the family to conduct the funeral without being harrased.

I know this could be quite expensive for the military, but I suspect there would be enough volunteers who would do it without pay.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Somehow we're arguing in circles.

We need to state what we're really aiming for, to allow the family to bury their fallen member with dignity, respect and love.

To do this we need to protect the venue of the funeral from known protestors without breaking the law ourselves. I would like to make a suggestion, setup a perimiter to stop disruptive influences with the police manning 2 checkpoints to allow people in or out. Disruptive influences should be told they're not welcome at the moment but they will be allowed access after a few hours.

I would suggest the perimeter be setup by the reserves or National Guard as a sign of respect for their fallen comrade. It could also be done as an aid to the civil power. The uniform should be dress blues or the equivalent.

Thia would stop the law enforcement agencies from breaking or bending the law out of sheer frustration. It would allow the military to show a final sign of respect and honour the fallen. It would allow the family to conduct the funeral without being harassed.

I know this could be quite expensive for the military, but I suspect there would be enough volunteers who would do it without pay.

Noble suggestion.

Do you know how many bridges are on the Highway of Heroes? 


I am not trying to be crass, but I am offering a reality check.  How much do we spend for protection?  How far do we go?  This does not even touch the actual burial site of the Member.

Too easy to offer such noble ideas, but these verministic protesters know we can not cover all angles.  Your idea is neat, but not feasible.

dileas

tess