The Glade 4.0

I assume the police fined them for that, so what is the issue?

People also have the right not to hear other people's garbage.

Sad that you think minority rights supercede majority rights.

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

I guess I can see that, and even agree with the mentality. I just think that specifically blocking in their cars, with the sole intent of illegally preventing them from getting somewhere is crossing a line.

An armed society is a polite society.

Ummm.... no. No they don't. Where the hell are you pulling this out of?

In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin

So I have to listen to whatever ridiculous **** spews out of your mouth? Good to know.

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Let's take a closer look at this, Rynar.


Say he chooses to remove himself. Say you choose to follow him, right to the edge of his property, and shout "ridiculous **** spews out of your mouth" all night, then follow him from his home, protesting him, all the time. Do you feel at any point this becomes an issue of harassment, and that such speech should at the very least be controlled in some way so as to prevent such harassment? Where is the line drawn between harassment and interfering with other people's rights and the right to free speech?

(Just curious.)

In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin

The government shouldn't involve itself in the situation. Period.

Not to restrict the speech.

Not to prosecute any attacks against the protesters.

So someone constantly walking in front of you shouting obscenities in your face at no point ever becomes harassment? One should have no legal recourse for such actions as long as they stay off your property?

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

So Rynar you're avocating a system with no 'reasonable restrictions' on time, and place for free speach?

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

That, by itself, is a sadly unremarkable – though certainly noteworthy and solemn – occasion for us to mark.

This is excellence in professional editing, right here.

"It [The U.S. Constitution] must be interpreted in the light of Common Law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. The language of the Constitution could not be understood without reference to the Common Law." U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456.

"Law of the Land" means "The Common Law." Taylor v. Porter, 4 Hill. 140, 146 (1843) - Justice Bronson; and State v. Simon, 2 Spears 761, 767 (1884) - Justice O'Neal.

The U.S. adopted the Common Laws of England with the Constitution. Coldwell v. Hill, 176 S.E. 383 (1934).

Common law, also known as case law or precedent, is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action. A "common law system" is a legal system that gives great precedential weight to common law, on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions.

In 1938, the U.S. Supreme Court in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938), overruled earlier precedent,[57] and held "There is no federal general common law," thus confining the federal courts to act only as interpreters of law originating elsewhere. E.g., Texas Industries v. Radcliff, 451 U.S. 630 (1981) (without an express grant of statutory authority, federal courts cannot create rules of intuitive justice, for example, a right to contribution from co-conspirators). Post-1938, federal courts deciding issues that arise under state law are required to defer to state court interpretations of state statutes, or reason what a state's highest court would rule if presented with the issue, or to certify the question to the state's highest court for resolution.

Later courts have limited Erie slightly, to create a few situations where United States federal courts are permitted to create federal common law rules without express statutory authority, for example, where a federal rule of decision is necessary to protect uniquely federal interests. See, e.g., Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363 (1943) (giving federal courts the authority to fashion common law rules with respect to issues of federal power, in this case negotiable instruments backed by the federal government); see also International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918) (creating a cause of action for misappropriation of "hot news" that lacks any statutory grounding, but that is one of the handful of federal common law actions that survives today); National Basketball Association v. Motorola, Inc., 105 F.3d 841, 843-44, 853 (2d Cir. 1997) (noting continued vitality of INS "hot news" tort under New York state law, but leaving open the question of whether it survives under federal law). Except on Constitutional issues, Congress is free to legislatively overrule federal courts' common law.

Terry doesn't deal with arrest in a broad term but provides an out in 4th amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches without warrant. It has little to do with the other methods of indicating one is under arrest and excuses none of them.