Cops Brutalize, Arrest Alaskan LaRouchite for Hate Crime

30Aug/1011

Cops Brutalize, Arrest Alaskan LaRouchite for Hate Crime

of criticizing Obama:

Brave liberal voices of outrage drowned out by crickets.

Dan Collins

Dan Collins is a dude who blogs. He used to blog elsewhere. Now he blogs here.

Website - More Posts

Filed under: Too Lazy to Categorize Leave a comment

Comments (11) Trackbacks (0) ( subscribe to comments on this post )

Joe
August 31st, 2010 - 09:14

The guy has the right to be a LaRouche follower. Nuttier than a Jay Bird that one. But if we do not protect the rights of nutters, we will find outselves in the cross hairs next.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
SicSemperTyrannus
August 31st, 2010 - 11:12

F*cking union cops and rental security are why we need open carry.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Snaqwells
August 31st, 2010 - 11:15

I guess I see this a little differently. I’m assuming the AK state fair is held on private property, so the fair has every right to restrict speech as they see fit. The right to free speech does not include the right to someone else’s platform to project that speech.

Also, he was only arrested after they discovered he was carrying a loaded weapon in violation of state fair rules. I’m a firm believer in the 2nd amendment, but I also believe people (including corporations, non-profits, etc) have the right to determine whether firearms are allowed on their property.

KTUU has a good rundown of the story here: http://tinyurl.com/29g5c55

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
- Dan Collins
  August 31st, 2010 - 16:18
  
  I doubt that the AK State Fair is held on private property.
  
  Like or Dislike: 0 0
  ( REPLY )
  - Snaqwells
    September 1st, 2010 - 08:04
    
    According to them they are. In the KTUU article, the spokesman states it’s a private organization and that it’s on private property. The AK State Fair website states they are a private 501(c)(3) organization, which at least makes it plausible that the non-profit owns the fair grounds.
    Page 2 of their vendor agreement confirms this as well: http://www.alaskastatefair.org/vendors/2009/2009%20Fair.pdf
    
    Like or Dislike: 0 0
    ( REPLY )
Snaqwells
August 31st, 2010 - 11:18

1. I’m pretty sure AK has open carry laws.
2. It’s irrelevant on private property if the owner doesn’t want it.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Mike LaRoche
September 1st, 2010 - 01:00

Don’t look at me!

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Snaqwells
September 1st, 2010 - 08:08

Whether it’s private property has nothing to do, of course, with whether the security guards acted excessively. I think the answer to that is based on whether or not they had the right to detain him at all. If they didn’t, they could be in trouble. If they did, then I don’t see that they used more force than necessary. They initially tried to just walk him out, and he responded by refusing to cooperate and wrapped himself around a guard.

As I watched the video, I thought they were a bit off by holding him down like that after they had him cuffed. But once I found out they had determined he was armed, I can understand it. At that point, as vocally abusive as he was being, I would have held his ass down and waited for cops to arrive to disarm him.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
- Dan Collins
  September 1st, 2010 - 09:36
  
  Well, it seems that you’re right. If their beef was with him carrying, though, it seems that they might have said that was why he had to go. As for the sign, if people were offended by that—and it is offensive to some, I’m sure—they had every right to let him know that rather than let security handle it for them. To often, people rely on authorities to express their hurt feelings for them; it cheapens public discourse.
  
  Like or Dislike: 0 0
  ( REPLY )
JoeBob
September 1st, 2010 - 09:50

“To often, people rely on authorities to express their hurt feelings for them; it cheapens public discourse.”

It also reduces the odds of the person who has hurt my feelings adding injury to insult by shooting me.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Snaqwells
September 2nd, 2010 - 06:15

It wasn’t just the sign; apparently, he wasn’t just standing in the one spot. Had he gone through the process of setting up a booth and stayed put, he would have been fine. Instead, he took it upon himself to interject his display into inappropriate venues, shouting his cause and interrupting entertainment acts and bothering passersby.

The only symptathy I hold for this man is for his apparent complete misunderstanding of the first amendment. And I still can’t believe LaRouche gets supporters; unbelievable.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )