Good News About the Westboro Wackos

The Westboros may make money here from a (I believe frivolous) lawsuit, but the positive PR gained and spreading of cheer at shutting them down just once is almost worth it.

Aircooled, black people had it tough I'll give you that, and history cannot be changed however; black people did not leave their {home-area-State-whatever} to intentionally disrespect a dead soldier and their family.

If you take exception that no witnesses to the Bible Banger's thumping could be found I understand, I do not understand see how this relates to blacks being beat up. Totally different motivation in attacker.

Dan

aircooled wrote:

poopshovel wrote: Black people are born black. E36 M3 heads decide to be E36 M3 heads. Make sense?

Oh, I see. So it's not OK to beat up black people (and for others to pretend they didn't see it) because you don't like them. But if there is a white guy that puts on black makeup it's beatin' time!?

Certainly you're doing your best "Iggy" interpretation, otherwise I can't see how anyone who speaks English as their native language could so torture those few words.

Of course, you win, because I responded to your trolling.

914Driver wrote: Aircooled, black people had it tough I'll give you that, and history cannot be changed however; black people did not leave their {home-area-State-whatever} to intentionally disrespect a dead soldier and their family.

Still not really the point.

Black people don't choose to be black.

Shiny happy people, CHOOSE to be shiny happy people. These people don't HAVE to protest these events. They CHOOSE to put themselves in those situations.

914Driver wrote: The Westboros may make money here from a (I believe frivolous) lawsuit, but the positive PR gained and spreading of cheer at shutting them down just once is almost worth it.

Possibly. I'd rather shut them down period than shut them down once. And as much as it sucks ass, unless the laws change, the only way to do that is to ignore them.

They may not win this one, but that's really not terribly relevant. It's a better case than many they have won, so I wouldn't bet much against them.. But again, their legal fees are very, very low. They don't have to win all (or even more than half) of the cases to keep themselves raking in the $$.

z31maniac wrote:

914Driver wrote: Aircooled, black people had it tough I'll give you that, and history cannot be changed however; black people did not leave their {home-area-State-whatever} to intentionally disrespect a dead soldier and their family.

Still not really the point. Black people don't choose to be black. Shiny happy people, CHOOSE to be shiny happy people. These people don't HAVE to protest these events. They CHOOSE to put themselves in those situations.

So it;'s all about choice. Anything that goes against the majority by choice (and therefore angers more people than not) is not allowed. Got it. Protests are only kosher if the majority agrees. And rights are only protected if they're popular.

Again, what they're doing is reprehensible, and I'd dance a jig (if I knew how) if their bus burst into flames while tooling down the highway. But that's not the issue.

I totally LOVE this... and have passed in on to a number of Marines, and Soldiers I know...

Thank you for posting it...

Besides the Phelps thing that City put on one awesome show of respect for the fallen Marine... It makes my hair stand on end... I love it...

Thanks again..

Semper Fi....

It depends on how you look at what happened, and what some of the other details are. A- they'll never be able to prove that the people at the scene of the beating saw something. If the camera in the gas station was "broken" and people can't remember what they saw- oh well. Trucks parked illegally? Sure, happens all the time. I in fact, was blocked in last week. Took the truck a couple hours to get there. Sucks. BUT- the police technically did their due dilligence in calling to have a wrecker come and fetch the illegally parked vehicles. Remember- the police never "techically" did any of this stuff. They were doing their jobs, right up until the whole detainment thing. That's a little sketchy, but hey, the police are just doing their jobs, right?

@keethrax Hey chief, all I was doing was clarifying a statement made by another member.

All that other stuff is conjecture on your part, that I never hinted at or implied.

Have a nice day.

mndsm wrote: It depends on how you look at what happened, and what some of the other details are. A- they'll never be able to prove that the people at the scene of the beating saw something. If the camera in the gas station was "broken" and people can't remember what they saw- oh well. Trucks parked illegally? Sure, happens all the time. I in fact, was blocked in last week. Took the truck a couple hours to get there. Sucks. BUT- the police technically did their due dilligence in calling to have a wrecker come and fetch the illegally parked vehicles. Remember- the police never "techically" did any of this stuff. They were doing their jobs, right up until the whole detainment thing. That's a little sketchy, but hey, the police are just doing their jobs, right?

Possibly, but you'd better hope nothing remotely resembling proof gets out, particularly involving any gov't personnel (including cops). Because if it does, the odds go way up and the payout goes through the roof.They've won similar cases before just because everybody who should know was way too evasive. Burden of proof in civil cases isn't high enough to mean there's no case here.

I'm related (by marriage) to a lawyer in KS who's been involved in more than one case against the WBC, and his quick reply based on only the info in the link was that they almost certainly had a case and had a decent chance of winning.

Decent doesn't have to be >50%., Decent Chance is defined as:

Decent Chance x Expected Damages >= Cost to the WBC (travel to funeral, costs associated with case, etc) + sufficient profit

In other words, I'm defining decent chance as a chance high enough to make cases profitable in the long run.

z31maniac wrote: ....Black people don't choose to be black. Shiny happy people, CHOOSE to be shiny happy people. These people don't HAVE to protest these events. They CHOOSE to put themselves in those situations.

It's NOT about the person being beaten. It's about the person DOING the beating. They perceive something they don't like, does it matter WHY that person is how they are?

I dunno..... remember Jeremy, Hamster and James rolling onto a Southern town with "Hillary for President and such painted on their cars. Pickup truck full of locals showed up as they were leaving.

No, it doesn't matter WHY that person is how they are.

I don't know how I feel about all this. On one hand I really support freedom of speech. On the other, they are doing it at funerals of brave soldiers who died for this country. The one thing that bothers me is the assault on the member of WBC.

93EXCivic wrote: I don't know how I feel about all this. On one hand I really support freedom of speech. On the other, they are doing it at funerals of brave soldiers who died for this country. The one thing that bothers me is the assault on the member of WBC.

It's what's legal versus our knowledge as human beings of what's right and wrong. Some people here put the law above what they know to be right and wrong. They look at it in black and white terms (not race), by the book. Others put moral responsibility ahead of what the law states. I always question laws when they don't also uphold what we all know to be right and wrong. I also question them when they protect the attacker more than the victim, which is absolutely the case here.

Keep in mind the lawsuit will be filed in Mississippi. I have family there, including a cousin who is a retired judge. We were there a few months ago.. It is very different than it was in the bad old days. BUT, they are a proud and patriotic people. I really think the wbc group was very lucky to escape. City fathers handled it painlessly and (mostly) legally. Nobody got hurt. It will be very interesting to see this case go before a jury. The appeals will be filed, but that first case will be a slam dunk. Real world, here.

Unfortunately, our justice system is based on the interpretation of the law, with not much consideration as to what's "morally" right and wrong.

Its just a damn shame no one saw anything at the gas station, and that they got double parked and the towing company was busy. Those poor people.

cwh wrote: Nobody got hurt.

How do you figure that, when they beat the E36 M3 out of a guy?

failboat wrote: Its just a damn shame no one saw anything at the gas station,

It is a shame. Even if the guy getting the E36 M3 beat out of him was morally wrong, so too is the beating and pretending not to know what happened.

The police harassment is a shame too even if it did serve have a good result. Police abusing their power is never a good thing.

The trucks are a much more minor matter, and one that mostly amuses me. EDIT: And seems to have been the most effective of the three.

"How do you figure that, when they beat the E36 M3 out of a guy? "

OK, you're right on that, I missed it. My bad.

cwh wrote: "How do you figure that, when they beat the E36 M3 out of a guy? " OK, you're right on that, I missed it. My bad.

Like I said in another reply, the trucks/towing bit wasn't so bad. I'd even call it inspired. As a bonus, it's pretty easily plausibly deniable as long as the cops came out and ticketed the trucks. I doubt any of the truck drivers would complain about getting a parking ticket as the cost to stop most of the WBC jackwagons.

The beating and acceptance of the beating as appropriate is not good no matter who the beating is directed at.

The police harassment is likewise bad (and the one that's likely the money maker for WBC, as there's no good target for $$ for the beating unless there's more info not included in the story).

A general consensus that beatings are OK as long as you disagree with the guy getting beat and that police harassment is OK as long as they're harassing someone you don't like is not OK in the least.

keethrax wrote: Possibly. I'd rather shut them down *period* than shut them down once. And as much as it sucks ass, unless the laws change, the only way to do that is to ignore them.

keethrax wrote:

cwh wrote: "How do you figure that, when they beat the E36 M3 out of a guy? " OK, you're right on that, I missed it. My bad.

Like I said in another reply, the trucks/towing bit wasn't so bad. I'd even call it inspired. As a bonus, it's pretty easily plausibly deniable as long as the cops came out and ticketed the trucks. I doubt any of the truck drivers would complain about getting a parking ticket as the cost to stop most of the WBC jackwagons. The beating and acceptance of the beating as appropriate is not good no matter who the beating is directed at. The police harassment is likewise bad (and the one that's likely the money maker for WBC, as there's no good target for $$ for the beating unless there's more info not included in the story). A general consensus that beatings are OK as long as you disagree with the guy getting beat and that police harassment is OK as long as they're harassing someone you don't like is not OK in the least.

I can't argue with that.

keethrax wrote:

cwh wrote: "How do you figure that, when they beat the E36 M3 out of a guy? " OK, you're right on that, I missed it. My bad.

Like I said in another reply, the trucks/towing bit wasn't so bad. I'd even call it inspired. As a bonus, it's pretty easily plausibly deniable as long as the cops came out and ticketed the trucks. I doubt any of the truck drivers would complain about getting a parking ticket as the cost to stop most of the WBC jackwagons. The beating and acceptance of the beating as appropriate is not good no matter who the beating is directed at. The police harassment is likewise bad (and the one that's likely the money maker for WBC, as there's no good target for $$ for the beating unless there's more info not included in the story). A general consensus that beatings are OK as long as you disagree with the guy getting beat and that police harassment is OK as long as they're harassing someone you don't like is not OK in the least.

But when does what the WBC do cross from freedom of speech to harassment? I know damn well if they'd set foot anywhere near me and direct that drivel towards me, i'd consider it harassment and do everything I could within my power to stop it. I know we've been over THAT end of it 100 times before, but in this event, i feel it bears repeating. How do you know where that line is? I have to say- I think the guy getting his ass handed to him good or not, was a wake up call to the rest of the group. People are going to watch that story VERY closely, on both sides, and it could likely determine what happens to the WBC both physically and legally in the future.

bravenrace wrote: It's what's legal versus our knowledge as human beings of what's right and wrong.

Okay, being that morals are ambiguous, how would you LEGALLY address the issue of the WBC protests?

mndsm wrote: How do you know where that line is? I have to say- I think the guy getting his ass handed to him good or not, was a wake up call to the rest of the group. People are going to watch that story VERY closely, on both sides, and it could likely determine what happens to the WBC both physically and legally in the future.

I'd bet you a tidy sum that the guy who got the beating harassed exactly nobody beforehand despite the story. The WBC is very selective about what they say, where, and to whom. It's all very, very calculated.

It's much, much more likely that the locals knew the WBC guys were in town, saw the KS plates, and the locals were the ones doing both the harassing and the beating. Remember, this happened ahead of time. And as later events would indicate, there was a much better solution for keeping most of them away from the funeral.

Why do you (and a few others here) have this fantasy that this is anything new, and therefore that this case is somehow different than the dozens of others that the WBC uses to fund itself?

Nobody noteworthy on either side is watching this "VERY closely," because it's nothing new and has nothing to do with what happens the the WBC "physically and legally in the future." Well, OK, the word "nothing" is a bit strong. How about: It has no more to do with those things than any other case they've been in. It's not new, unique, or special in any way.

ReverendDexter wrote: Okay, being that morals are ambiguous, how would you LEGALLY address the issue of the WBC protests?

The only thing I can think of is a version of "yelling fire in a theater" defense. In that what they say is causing potential danger to people. Of course in this case it would be them. You would of course have to prove that a reasonable person would be hard pressed not to attack them for what they say....

...or something like that.