Westboro Baptist Church

[Keith B]

This group is about as Baptist as I am. No correlation whatsoever.

Now I have a image of Billy Graham in a yamaka.

[SC1903A3]

My son who is stationed at Goose Creek advised that Westboro was in their area about two weeks ago. Their base commander put out the word that Westboro was considered a terrorist group an put the naval base on force protection bravo with orders for all personnel to have no contact it the people showed up at the base gates.

[williamkevin]

Subscribing to this thread.

[iratollah]

This group is about as Baptist as I am. No correlation whatsoever.

Now I have a image of Billy Graham in a yamaka.

OK, I'm laughing. Couldn't find a pic of Rev. Graham in a yarmulke, but I think there's one out there. I did find some pictures however of the pope wearing one.

You'd laugh at some of the pics I have of those WBC clowns. But as their signage is somewhat vulgar, I won't post them here. I put on a tinfoil hat while I was taking their pictures, they weren't amused.

[KD5NRH]

They really are the devil's tools. I wouldn't make water on one if them if he were to burst into flame right in front of me.

So, it's safe to assume that you would as long as they're not on fire?

I think I may be on to something here; would PC9.22 cover setting fire to someone to protect them from TAM's biological attack?

[longtooth]

This Flag Wavin, Troop supportin, Baptist Preacher has nothing but disdain & udder contempt for that guy that calls himself a preacher,

but remember please about inuendo.

There are a few that would like to take the last few posts to new leval of discussion & would get the thread locked.

I will confess I too would like to take them all to a cattle holding pen at the local sale barn for a ground face washin too.

but lets get it back on topic so it can stay open.

To our deployed troops.
LT

To our fallen w/ great honor. We need a Half Staff icon here.
LT

To those who disparage US toorps & pervert the True Gospel of "The Holy One of Israel" we anxiously await your arrival to run our gauntlet line..

[LaserTex]

The one good thing that came out of the actions of the WBC - http://www.patriotguard.org/ Rode on 5 missions so far. The don't show up in Texas much LOL.

Patriot Guard Riders Mission Statement

The Patriot Guard Riders is a diverse amalgamation of riders from across the nation. We have one thing in common besides motorcycles. We have an unwavering respect for those who risk their very lives for America’s freedom and security. If you share this respect, please join us.

We don’t care what you ride or if you ride, what your political views are, or whether you’re a hawk or a dove. It is not a requirement that you be a veteran. It doesn't matter where you’re from or what your income is; you don’t even have to ride. The only prerequisite is Respect.

Our main mission is to attend the funeral services of fallen American heroes as invited guests of the family. Each mission we undertake has two basic objectives:

Show our sincere respect for our fallen heroes, their families, and their communities.
Shield the mourning family and their friends from interruptions created by any protestor or group of protestors.

We accomplish the latter through strictly legal and non-violent means.

To those of you who are currently serving and fighting for the freedoms of others, at home and abroad, please know that we are backing you. We honor and support you with every mission we carry out, and we are praying for a safe return home for all.





Doug

[tallmike]

If the whole thing wasn't so sad this part would crack me up

The fact that so many people hate these words does not mean you can silence or penalize them. That's supposed to be the great liberty that we congratulate ourselves on protecting in this nation. We strut all around the world forcing people to give all the liberties we supposedly have," she said.

So they protest at the funeral of one of those heroes who are actually defending this right for them? Talk about hypocrisy! ... and the funny part is that they are too dumb to see it. :willynilly

Do you not see the hypocrisy in calling them dumb for making use of that right?

Back when I was stationed at Ft Riley, KS I passed their main church a few times in Topeka. They had their domain name emblazoned across the roof. Its not a nice domain (http://www.godhates****.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - you can find the website to learn how it ends if you really want)

How many of you cared when they protested at gay funerals?

[The Annoyed Man]

How many of you cared when they protested at gay funerals?

I cared, and I'm a dyed in the wool evangelical Christian. I've been following these crazies since 1998, before 9/11, before Afghanistan, before Iraq, and they are evil to the bone. I tried emailing them to engage in a Christian discourse back then because I thought their hatred ran so afoul of Christ's teaching, yes, even regarding gays. You should see the vomit they spewed in response. I call strawman to your charge.

[gigag04]

The police have no duty to protect individual citizens. As such there is no reason for police to provide escort or protect. Remove that coverage. Let nature take its course.

Disagree.

[LarryH]

I'm with giga06 on most recent comment. One of the "jobs" of the police, I believe, is to maintain order. They are not protecting individual citizens in this case, but acting as a buffer between the groups, with the intention of making sure the heated emotions don't spill over into mob violence, as would be too easy.

[The Annoyed Man]

I'm with giga06 on most recent comment. One of the "jobs" of the police, I believe, is to maintain order. They are not protecting individual citizens in this case, but acting as a buffer between the groups, with the intention of making sure the heated emotions don't spill over into mob violence, as would be too easy.

Agreed in principle, but in actual fact, I believe that the SCOTUS disagrees with all three of us...

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
By LINDA GREENHOUSE (New York Times)
Published: June 28, 2005

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.

For hours on the night of June 22, 1999, Jessica Gonzales tried to get the Castle Rock police to find and arrest her estranged husband, Simon Gonzales, who was under a court order to stay 100 yards away from the house. He had taken the children, ages 7, 9 and 10, as they played outside, and he later called his wife to tell her that he had the girls at an amusement park in Denver.

Ms. Gonzales conveyed the information to the police, but they failed to act before Mr. Gonzales arrived at the police station hours later, firing a gun, with the bodies of the girls in the back of his truck. The police killed him at the scene.

The theory of the lawsuit Ms. Gonzales filed in federal district court in Denver was that Colorado law had given her an enforceable right to protection by instructing the police, on the court order, that "you shall arrest" or issue a warrant for the arrest of a violator. She argued that the order gave her a "property interest" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment's due process guarantee, which prohibits the deprivation of property without due process.

The district court and a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit dismissed the suit, but the full appeals court reinstated it and the town appealed. The Supreme Court's precedents made the appellate ruling a challenging one for Ms. Gonzales and her lawyers to sustain.

A 1989 decision, DeShaney v. Winnebago County, held that the failure by county social service workers to protect a young boy from a beating by his father did not breach any substantive constitutional duty. By framing her case as one of process rather than substance, Ms. Gonzales and her lawyers hoped to find a way around that precedent.

But the majority on Monday saw little difference between the earlier case and this one, Castle Rock v. Gonzales, No. 04-278. Ms. Gonzales did not have a "property interest" in enforcing the restraining order, Justice Scalia said, adding that "such a right would not, of course, resemble any traditional conception of property."

Although the protective order did mandate an arrest, or an arrest warrant, in so many words, Justice Scalia said, "a well-established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes."

But Justices Stevens and Ginsburg, in their dissenting opinion, said "it is clear that the elimination of police discretion was integral to Colorado and its fellow states' solution to the problem of underenforcement in domestic violence cases." Colorado was one of two dozen states that, in response to increased attention to the problem of domestic violence during the 1990's, made arrest mandatory for violating protective orders.

"The court fails to come to terms with the wave of domestic violence statutes that provides the crucial context for understanding Colorado's law," the dissenting justices said.

Organizations concerned with domestic violence had watched the case closely and expressed disappointment at the outcome. Fernando LaGuarda, counsel for the National Network to End Domestic Violence, said in a statement that Congress and the states should now act to give greater protection.

To me, that sounds like police do not have any kind of enforceable duty to protect. According to the court, they only have a duty to try and maintain order, and even at that, failure to do so does not open them up to any liability. As Ms. Gonzales found out, even a 4 hour gap between original notification of complaint and an actual response to the complaint (when the perp brought the fight to them) does not constitute a police failure with consequent liability. At least, that's how I read it. I'm just saying that there appears to be no legal obligation on the part of LEOs to protect or to keep the public order. If there had been, Gonzales' children might be alive today.

Even so, I believe that the vast majority of LEOs see themselves as sheep dogs and act accordingly.

[marksiwel]

The police have no duty to protect individual citizens. As such there is no reason for police to provide escort or protect. Remove that coverage. Let nature take its course.

Disagree.

Gotta agree to your Disagree.
If the cops dont protect them, they are just going to sue the city and get more money. Dont feed the beast

[marksiwel]

How many of you cared when they protested at gay funerals?

I cared, and I'm a dyed in the wool evangelical Christian. I've been following these crazies since 1998, before 9/11, before Afghanistan, before Iraq, and they are evil to the bone. I tried emailing them to engage in a Christian discourse back then because I thought their hatred ran so afoul of Christ's teaching, yes, even regarding gays. You should see the vomit they spewed in response. I call strawman to your charge.

How about alittle fire scarecrow!


I think ALOT of people DIDNT care or get too upset when they were protesting Funerals for Gays, thats why they went after the Troops because they knew it would REALLY upset people.
I'm not accusing anyone here homophobic btw.

i'd be intersted in what their email response was

We called them once at work after 9/11 Iraq war era when I worked in Lewisville at what is now the Studio Movie grill. They basically threatened to call the cops.
We pretended to be Gay Arabs, and then it all ended with us making Farm Animal Noises. I miss that job

[iratollah]

City of Houston probably spent $10,000 - $15,000 providing protection for four of these hate mongers to spread their venom around our city on a Sunday and Monday. If they choose to go out in public to incite and be inflammatory, why should I pay for their protection? I'm subsidizing their brand of hate. Sure they have free speech, but if they want to be stupid about it and put themselves into situations where they intend to cause conflict, why should I pay for their fun?