Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who do you think would pay for a trial (or trials) for 30 people? Ridiculous.
Ummmm.... That would be the citizens of Wake County. The same people who paid the ridiculous costs for increased security at BOE meetings while certain individuals from outside Wake County exercised their perceived right to be disorderly.
Another candidate for a "clear thinking" bonus cash extravaganza.....if there was such a thing on here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by netbrad
The Constitution is about rights and the law, not feelings. Public buffoonery should always be exposed and ridiculed.
Additionally, civil disobedience typically indicates a protest against an injustice. What was the injustice here? That the new board was considering replacing a failed policy? The new board wasn't a Democratic majority anymore? The real injustice was the horrid minority graduation rates over the last 10 years that somehow weren't a concern until non-Democrats got a majority of board seats.
So are you saying only certain laws matter? How do we pick and choose which laws to enforce? What is the criteria? Who is the decider in all cases?
Will you be supporting the rights of tea party people who show up at school board meetings for the next two years and yell, scream and shout down the new board members? Will you support their right to occupy the meeting facilities? Will you support the general disruption of conducting the citizen's business? Will you support outside groups coming into wake county to force their vision upon the new school board and breaking the law to do so? Will you be supportive?
If the answer is yes to all, then bravo to you for being consistent.
Um...No one said they were supporting their right to disturb the school board meetings. You seem to be warping several different issues into one little anger nugget. They were arrested and removed just like anyone else being disruptive at. School board meeting should be. But, in this particular case and these particular set of these facts, I don't think it needs to lead to a criminal trial since mediation was offered. Protesting in general though, I will ALWAYS support no matter what side of the fence the protesters are on.
If someone else were to do something worse, maybe it should go to trial, I don't know because that theoretical event hasn't happened yet. If it does, the facts will again be looked at and decided upon by the DA whether he wants to take it to trial or not. I tend to look things on a case by case basis, knowing that the facts of each situation usually differ.
Um...No one said they were supporting their right to disturb the school board meetings. You seem to be warping several different issues into one little anger nugget. They were arrested and removed just like anyone else being disruptive at. School board meeting should be. But, in this particular case and these particular set of these facts, I don't think it needs to lead to a criminal trial since mediation was offered. Protesting in general though, I will ALWAYS support no matter what side of the fence the protesters are on.
If someone else were to do something worse, maybe it should go to trial, I don't know because that theoretical event hasn't happened yet. If it does, the facts will again be looked at and decided upon by the DA whether he wants to take it to trial or not. I tend to look things on a case by case basis, knowing that the facts of each situation usually differ.
So you don't believe law enforcement or prosecutors should have any discretion ever?
The discretion is in the charges and penalties, not in the actual prosecution. I know that if I was arrested for trespassing anywhere I would not get an offer of mediation.
Quote:
Oh, I know. That was just me perpetually amazed at His Assness. I swear. "We don't want to encourage civil disobedience." Who the frick does he think he is, anyway?
This uh, description of Margiotta tells you all you need to know about the mindset of those who opposed the Margiotta board. While the term civil disobedience was a poor choice of words in that context, I believe the larger point he was trying to make was that failing to punish the disrupters would encourage future mob actions.
Quote:
But, in this particular case and these particular set of these facts, I don't think it needs to lead to a criminal trial since mediation was offered.
The issue is that mediation should not have been offered in the first place. They wanted to offer an easy way out so the new board would curry favor with the disrupters.
They can offer anything they want! It's up to the school board whether to accept it or not, and that is the whole point of the thread!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Netbrad - I salute you!
