Court finds S.C. Gov. Nikki Haley violated civil rights arresting Occupy protesters

[Oldgamer]

I imagine there will be tons of lawsuits rolling in now..lmao

I always wondered if they had a legal right to remove the tents and such of the protesters and force them away. Now we know!

--------------------------------------

A federal appeals court ruled on Monday that South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R) could be sued for violating the civil rights of Occupy Columbia protesters who were removed from the Statehouse grounds and arrested in 2011.

A month after the activists set up tents on the Statehouse grounds in October of 2011, Haley ordered the Bureau of Protective Services to arrest anyone who camped at the site past 6 p.m. in the evening. Officers eventually placed zip ties on the wrists of a number of protesters and took them to Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center.

Trespassing charges against the protesters were dropped two weeks later.

In the Monday ruling, the court found that Haley had violated the civil rights of the protesters because there was no regulation in place preventing camping on the Statehouse grounds.

The state Budget and Control Board, which is chaired by Haley, eventually did create emergency regulations against camping.

“In light of the case law from this circuit and from the Supreme Court, it was clearly established on November 16, 2011, that arresting Occupy Columbia for protesting on State House grounds after 6:00 p.m. was a First Amendment violation,” Circuit Judge Stephanie D. Thacker wrote.

“It is not disputed that South Carolina and its state officials could have restricted the time when the State House grounds are open to the public with a valid time, place, and manner restriction,” the court said. “However, as explained above, at the time of Occupy Columbia’s arrest, no such restrictions existed.”

Just hours before the arrests in 2011, Haley had complained that she had seen “toilet paper in the bushes, sleeping bags.”

“Protest and do whatever you want to do during daylight hours. As of 6 o’clock, everyone’s property needs to be off,” she warned. “We go by the rule of law. We are not California, we are not NY, we are SC and we believe in the respect of property and citizens.”

Link here to article

 

[theeedude]

Don't worry, the Republicans will appeal to the statist Roberts court and their suppression of First Amendment rights will be upheld 5-4.

 

[Oldgamer]

Don't worry, the Republicans will appeal to the statist Roberts court and their suppression of First Amendment rights will be upheld 5-4.

Yea, I wouldn't be surprised if something like that happened honestly. There was an article about how most American's have completely lost faith in the current Supreme Court right now, and how many want to push harder for term limits, transparency, camera's in the SC court room, and open up transparency on conflicts of interests of the SC judges and cases they are hearing.

Ah yes, here is the article: Wide Majorities Losing Faith In John Roberts' Supreme Court, Want Term Limits

 

[PokerGuy]

Wasn't that back in December? Is that news now?

 

[Oldgamer]

Wasn't that back in December? Is that news now?

I only just saw it, and I am sure many others might not have read about this. Who cares if it was back in December anyway? Jeesh.. way to thread crap.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Wait - a Republican is abusing the rights of people speaking out against immoral and corupt businesses??

It must be a usual and normal day of the year.

 

[PokerGuy]

Yawn. Basically the court said the rules that said the idiots weren't allowed to camp there were not put in place until after they removed the idiots. Big whoop. Now those regs are in place.

This is not news, it was 6 months ago, and it wasn't some earth shattering ruling either, it was a mere technicality, as the court simply said "yes, you have the right to set the restrictions and enforce them, but you had not done so yet so technically you shouldn't have removed them until after you set those rules".

 

[Oldgamer]

Yawn. Basically the court said the rules that said the idiots weren't allowed to camp there were not put in place until after they removed the idiots. Big whoop. Now those regs are in place.

This is not news, it was 6 months ago, and it wasn't some earth shattering ruling either, it was a mere technicality, as the court simply said "yes, you have the right to set the restrictions and enforce them, but you had not done so yet so technically you shouldn't have removed them until after you set those rules".

Yawn, another repug being repugnant..lol

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Wasn't that back in December? Is that news now?

wasn't Benghazi back in 2012? Is that news now?

 

[theeedude]

Yawn. Basically the court said the rules that said the idiots weren't allowed to camp there were not put in place until after they removed the idiots. Big whoop. Now those regs are in place.

This is not news, it was 6 months ago, and it wasn't some earth shattering ruling either, it was a mere technicality, as the court simply said "yes, you have the right to set the restrictions and enforce them, but you had not done so yet so technically you shouldn't have removed them until after you set those rules".

Arrest people first, make what they did illegal to justify the arrest later, no big whoop.

 

[Genx87]

I find it interesting according to the quoted text that provided she had a regulation in place it wouldn't be violating their rights. So the state can pass a law that violates your rights? But it is ok because there is a law that allows them to?

 

[hal2kilo]

I find it interesting according to the quoted text that provided she had a regulation in place it wouldn't be violating their rights. So the state can pass a law that violates your rights? But it is ok because there is a law that allows them to?

That thought struck me also.

 

[Thebobo]

wasn't Benghazi back in 2012? Is that news now?

LOL

 

[etrigan420]

wasn't Benghazi back in 2012? Is that news now?

Where's the outrage, yo?

 

[Newell Steamer]

wasn't Benghazi back in 2012? Is that news now?

Boom - headshot.

 

[HomerJS]

Wasn't that back in December? Is that news now?

What's the matter not enough Benghazi stories?

Damnit, beat me too it!!

 

[brycejones]

wasn't Benghazi back in 2012? Is that news now?

You're not supposed to attempt to pierce the bubble. Didn't you get the memo?

 

[waggy]

Arrest people first, make what they did illegal to justify the arrest later, no big whoop.

exactly.

though while you have a right to protest i don't feel you have a right to camp out on the lawn.

 

[ivwshane]

I find it interesting according to the quoted text that provided she had a regulation in place it wouldn't be violating their rights. So the state can pass a law that violates your rights? But it is ok because there is a law that allows them to?

Yes, just like all rights, the government has the right to place restrictions on them. Nothing new really. It's why bush was able to create protest zones or why cities can restrict when/where parades happen.

 

[Oldgamer]

I find it interesting according to the quoted text that provided she had a regulation in place it wouldn't be violating their rights. So the state can pass a law that violates your rights? But it is ok because there is a law that allows them to?

Exactly..

 

[werepossum]

Meh. Hot governor versus smelly hippies shitting on police cars and demanding that someone else pay off their student loans, give them free stuff, and find their stolen MacBook Airs? I'll go with hot governor every time.

Drop the charges and re-charge for vagrancy and public nuisance.

Also, Haley is Indian, so

YOU RACIST BASTARDS! HOW DARE YOU DISAGREE WITH HER!

 

[Exterous]

I imagine there will be tons of lawsuits rolling in now..lmao

Good although there will likely not be any actual consequences to the Governor.

 

[PokerGuy]

wasn't Benghazi back in 2012? Is that news now?

If there were no new developments, news releases, updated information, hearings etc, then no, it would not be news now. However, it becomes news when additional information is revealed, or additional investigations are done etc. I know, I know, why let pesky "logic" get in the way of your delusions.

 

[PokerGuy]

Arrest people first, make what they did illegal to justify the arrest later, no big whoop.

It isn't a big whoop. The court already said what was done was not allowed, so the appropriate actions have already been taken. What more did you want to be done?

 

[PokerGuy]

I find it interesting according to the quoted text that provided she had a regulation in place it wouldn't be violating their rights. So the state can pass a law that violates your rights? But it is ok because there is a law that allows them to?

I don't get where you'd get the idea that any rights would be violated if they have restrictions in place on when certain spaces can be used. Doesn't just about every metro park have a closing time?

That's basically what was going on here. They were camping out in a space, and there was no specific regulation saying "you have to leave this space by 6PM" or something to that effect. Thus, when the idiots were removed from that space, the judge says, it wasn't proper because there was no stipulation that they would have to leave by a certain time. So now, there are specific times when you can be there and when you can't. Nobody's rights are violated, nobody has a right to be in whatever place they want whenever they want without restriction.