And today in "Headlines You Never Expected to See"

FoBoT

No Lifer
Apr 30, 2001
63,084
15
81
fobot.com
At least 65 people were arrested on charges including assault, vandalism, failure to obey police and failure to disperse. The white supremacists had left hours earlier, Navarre said.

"We frankly could have made a couple hundred arrests easily," Navarre said. "We just didn't have the resources on hand to arrest all of them."


so, who were the bad guys?
 

Howard

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
47,982
11
81
Keith White, a black resident, criticized city officials for allowing the march in the first place. "They let them come here and expect this not to happen?" said White, 29.
Is there truth to this blame and lack of responsibility?
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
Originally posted by: Howard
Keith White, a black resident, criticized city officials for allowing the march in the first place. "They let them come here and expect this not to happen?" said White, 29.
Is there truth to this blame and lack of responsibility?

Uh...not that it shifts responsibility, but:
The mayor had appealed to residents the night before to ignore the march. He said the city wouldn't give the Nazi group a permit to march in the streets but couldn't stop them from walking on the sidewalks.
 

no0b

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2001
3,804
1
0
blah blah blah right to peacefully assemble no matter how ignorant you are blah blah blah
 

LordMaul

Lifer
Nov 16, 2000
15,168
1
0
In reference to the above, what are the laws on getting permits to demonstrate? Why was their ability to march on the streets refused, while their ability to walk on the sidewalks was not? Just because it wasn't an official "march" without the permit, which was refused because...they deemed it too controversial? How is that a justification to deprive *any* group of such a permit?

:confused:
 

The Linuxator

Banned
Jun 13, 2005
3,121
1
0
I have called a friend of mine in Toledo Ohio, he told me that they were 20 Nazi members and they were given the right to march , so these 20 members were faced with hundreds of members of black gangs that started throwing stones at them turning the "Peaceful march" into a riot.

Racisim is ignorance, but to attack some other groups legit rights is being as ignorant as they are.
Bottom line the stupid gangs gave the Nazi's exactly what they wanted.
 

LordMaul

Lifer
Nov 16, 2000
15,168
1
0
...they were given the right to march...

The article states that they were refused the right to march, but weren't prevented from doing a little legal sidestepping of the refusal, in a way. That is what I don't understand...why was the permit refused in the first place? Or was it really not refused, and your friend got it right?
 

no0b

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2001
3,804
1
0
I like the video footage of the crowd throwing stones/bricks at an ambulance. If I was the driver I would have ran them over. There is no justification for attacking an ambulance.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
wow.

bad situation. on one hand this proves what they were marching about. on the other say that you get labled raciest. heh not good
 

FoBoT

No Lifer
Apr 30, 2001
63,084
15
81
fobot.com
Originally posted by: waggy
wow.

bad situation. on one hand this proves what they were marching about. on the other say that you get labled raciest. heh not good

D'oh! you said it!
 

no0b

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2001
3,804
1
0
Originally posted by: waggy
wow.

bad situation. on one hand this proves what they were marching about. on the other say that you get labled raciest. heh not good

Yea but the neo-nazis want this to happen, Hitler used this tactic to get support for the nazi's. He had his goonies demostrate in socialist beerhalls which caused a riot that was started by the socialists. This gave people sympathy for the nazi's movement.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: Howard
Originally posted by: FoBoT
Originally posted by: waggy
wow.

bad situation. on one hand this proves what they were marching about. on the other say that you get labled raciest. heh not good

D'oh! you said it!
What, raciest?

yeap that proves drinking and posting is bad!
 

The Linuxator

Banned
Jun 13, 2005
3,121
1
0
Originally posted by: LordMaul
...they were given the right to march...

The article states that they were refused the right to march, but weren't prevented from doing a little legal sidestepping of the refusal, in a way. That is what I don't understand...why was the permit refused in the first place? Or was it really not refused, and your friend got it right?


You can say that they didn't violate the law, they were refused to protest in the street , but legally there was nothing preventing them from protesting on the sidewalk so that's what they did.
 

The Linuxator

Banned
Jun 13, 2005
3,121
1
0
They are accusing the police of being responsible for the riot, becasue there original route was redirected so that they collide with the anti-Nazi protest go figure LOL.
 

LordMaul

Lifer
Nov 16, 2000
15,168
1
0
...they were refused to protest in the street...

...Exactly. Why? Isn't there some sort of "right to assembly," (mentioned above) and that being a public place, etc. itwould mean they automatically had the right to do march, sans permit? Or am I missing something here?
 

The Linuxator

Banned
Jun 13, 2005
3,121
1
0
Originally posted by: LordMaul
...they were refused to protest in the street...

...Exactly. Why? Isn't there some sort of "right to assembly," (mentioned above) and that being a public place, etc. itwould mean they automatically had the right to do march, sans permit? Or am I missing something here?


I don't think it was fair, I will try contacting him again if he knows what explanation the police had for it.