The Mental Militia Forums

Tyranny in a Police State => Police Abuses => Topic started by: 0point on March 13, 2012, 05:26:13 pm

Title: Police Arrests at Peaceful Women’s Rights Protest in Richmond Virginia
Post by: 0point on March 13, 2012, 05:26:13 pm

Police Arrests at Peaceful Women’s Rights Protest in Richmond Virginia (

What happened here is that there was a protest against the bill at the state capitol, which of course is off limits for such actions. A SWAT team moved in with full riot gear – there was a long line of them decked out with opaque visors, tasers, batons, rifles, dogs, etc. Deployed against about 500 middle-aged women and aging hippie guys. Now there's a threat to the public order. This is one chilling video ( If you want to cut to the chase, forward to about the eight-minute mark...

Made me physically ill to watch this, but this is reality, the new amerika.

Title: Re: Police Arrests at Peaceful Women’s Rights Protest in Richmond Virginia
Post by: mutti on March 13, 2012, 06:21:40 pm
Well - there might have been someone being protected by Secret Service nearby which of course is now covered more explicitly:
Last week, President Obama signed into law the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, which has been called “the anti-Occupy” bill, but as the ACLU points out, it was the elimination of one word from an existing law that could make life harder for protesters.

He added: “The new law should punish and deal more effectively with anyone who illegally enters restricted areas to threaten the President, Vice President, or other Secret Service protectees.”

Gee - you mean the SS now decides where free speech could be. After all this makes "moving restricted areas". Ya' know, like the flies buzzing from one pile to another.......................

When the WSJ and New American agree on something - it's a warm day somewhere!

President Signs Law Placing Prior Restraint on Free Speech :

The distinction between "willful" and "knowing" is a legal construction that needn't be explained fully here, but for purposes of understanding the implications of the difference on a person's First Amendment rights of free speech, one need only understand that a protestor would certainly "know" that he is protesting, where he is protesting, and that his protest is an expression of opposition to a person or a policy. However, given the fact that the designation of a restricted zone changes without notice (no special police tape, no signs, no noticeable law enforcement patrolling the area), a protestor would probably not know that he was trespassing into a specially protected "restricted zone" or that he was too close to a person endowed by the President with a Secret Service retinue.

It is possible, therefore, that a person could attend a political speech by one of the GOP contenders or by Attorney General Eric Holder, for example, and unintentionally find himself within the prohibited parameters and be subject to federal fines and imprisonment. Who can deny that this discourages free speech? Furthermore, who can deny that the right to speak out freely against government oppression is one of the chief cornerstones of our Republic?