Trial Begins for 5 Accused of Violating Crawford's Parade Ordinance

[kskiska]

CRAWFORD — A trial began Saturday for five peace activists arrested here last May for allegedly protesting illegally within the city limits. The case carries nothing more than a fine if they are convicted, but would mean a restriction on speech to the defendants.

The activists are charged with violating the city's parade and procession ordinance — a class C misdemeanor that carries up to a $500 fine. The five and about a hundred others were on their way to President Bush's ranch near Crawford to protest the war in Iraq and various Bush administration policies when they ran into a police blockade. They were arrested after Crawford Police Chief Donnie Tidmore warned everyone to leave.

The trial, held at the Crawford Community Center, is set to continue at 9 a.m. Feb. 16 because lawyers only had time to bring three out of about 11 witnesses to the stand on Saturday.

One of those witnesses, Tidmore, said during cross-examination that a person wearing political buttons without a permit could violate a city ordinance that requires prior notice before a protest or parade.

more…
http://www.wacotrib.com/news/newsfd/auto/feed/news/2004/02/08/1076222527.26609.3387.6762.html;COXnetJSessionID=AmMcOljcQ2R83e7UfcosYNY0h2he7YC21NlPkKOJfmz6aQ825t16!694307204?urac=n&urvf=10762680608770.6466477327091947

[rfranklin]

1. Hooray for the home of the free!

Thank God we don't live in some repressive regime like the old Iraq where you couldn't protest the leader....uh, never mind.

[DemoTex]

2. Chief Tidmore, meet Sheriffs "Bull" Conner (B'ham) and Jim Clark (Selma).

They would have loved Tidmore's "wearing political buttons without a permit" testimony. In fact, Tidmore sounds somewhat like the reincarnation of what the civil rights movement was up against in Alabama and Mississippi in 1965. At least LBJ had the balls to call George Wallace on the telephone and tell him that the Selma to Montgomery march would be allowed and that the State of Alabama would protect the marchers.

[Cooley Hurd]

3. Can you fucking believe it???

<snip>
One of those witnesses, Tidmore, said during cross-examination that a person wearing political buttons without a permit could violate a city ordinance that requires prior notice before a protest or parade.

The chief was asked whether one of the defendants would have violated the ordinance by sporting political buttons, such as those that read "No Nukes" and "Peace," without the permit.

"It could be a sign of demonstration," Tidmore said.
</snip>

If that isn't a blatant violation of one's First Amendment rights, then I don't know what is...

God, they SUCK!

[Bozita]

4. good find -- scary stuff -- thanks, kskiska

This guy's a sheriff?

-snip-

One of those witnesses, Tidmore, said during cross-examination that a person wearing political buttons without a permit could violate a city ordinance that requires prior notice before a protest or parade.

The chief was asked whether one of the defendants would have violated the ordinance by sporting political buttons, such as those that read "No Nukes" and "Peace," without the permit.

"It could be a sign of demonstration," Tidmore said.

-snip-

[Dr Fate]

5. Why does Bush hate their freedom?

Lots of freedom hating going round these days.

[Mairead]

6. If we had a genuinely democratic nation, then

any officeholder who violated a citizen's constitutional rights would at a minimum lose his job and if it were a bad violation, go to prison too.

That would make a lot of Tidmores think twice before playing tin god.

[finecraft]

7. What is it with people in Crawford?

Their most famous resident goes to war, based on "weapons of mass destruction program activity intentions". Would you call this "parade ordinance violation" a "Anti-war demonstration program activity intention"? Can people from Crawford read minds or something, because they sure seem to "know" what people intend to do!

[CaptAhab]

8. Reminiscence of Cox v. Louisiana

There was a court case in the 1960s, Cox v. Louisiana, where a group of black students who staged protests and picketing in Baton Rouge were arrested for violating a local ordinance that prohibited parades of any kind, unless approved by local officials. The trouble was that the ordinance was not applied in a uniform and non-discriminatory manner--certain parades were allowed by the Baton Rouge authorities, but there was no established procedure to determine whether an event was allowed or not. The Supreme Court reversed the petitioners' convictions on the grounds that their First and Fourteenth amendment rights were violated. Interesting to note that the court saw no problem with the ordinance itself, but rather how it was applied.

[burrowowl]

14. Welcome to DU!

It is a different SC today.
Did you see also that the Feds received a supoena for records of anti-war protesters.
McCarthyism is showing its teeth, what next HCUA?!

[Just Me]

9. Enacting laws like these to suppress nonviolent dissent can only lead,...

,...to a revolt. We are not animals to be caged in this way, having our only real power of our voice imprisoned in such a manner. The insidious means by which the "neocon cabal" is acting to force us into subservience is nothing short of a dagger to democracy. No wonder they (Franks) have talked about "martial law" necessarily being imposed as they have attempted (perhaps succeeded, I dunno) to kill off an act (my memory banks are slipping) enacted back in like the late 40's or early 50's which imposed specific limitations.

I honestly do believe that I am witnessing one of the worst historical moments in my country. I am verily concerned about how much worse it may become.

[FeebMaster]

10. These people knew the law.

I'm not saying they can't protest. Just that they can't break the law while doing it. They were warned that they were in violation of the law, but they chose to continue. In effect, they took the law into their own hands. That, in my humble opinion, makes them assholes.

They knew the law. They chose to break it. They should face the consequences.

[Kipper58]

11. Well, if they broke the law -

Doesn't that make your Founding Fathers assholes?

[AZCat]

12. By that logic- yes

But thankfully, that logic is flawed.
They would only be assholes if they produced shit like the argument above.
Civil disobedience is a necessary function of citizens of a democracy.

[CO Liberal]

13. Crawford Will Face Consequences As Well

The consequences of public opinion.

However, no one has the right to choose which laws they will and will not obey. And in this case, if it can be shown that this law was passed to protect Pretzelboy from seeing protesters, it may work against him this November.

(BTW, some people here at DU will try to show a parallel between this story and the story of a man in Wilmette, Illinois. He used a handgun to shoot an intruder in his home, which violated Wilmette's handgun ban. I do not se a parallel because Wilmette offerred an option - if someone chose to, they could use another type of gun - just not a handgun. In Crawford, the proteters had no option. So IMHO, the stories are different.)

[FeebMaster]

16. Apples and Oranges I guess (nt)

...

[lolly]

15. Laws cannot violate the constitution

Even with MLK and his civil disobedience, it was finally declared that he broke no laws because the laws that he was accused of breaking were unconstitutional, I believe.

When it is clear that a law violates constitutional rights, I can only applaud those who force the issue into the open this way.

[The_Casual_Observer]

17. person wearing political buttons without a permit

OK enough is enough.

Exactly what kind of shit-assed country has this become now anyway?

Is this the kind of "free" country that the Army men are fighting for in Iraq? Do they know this? Do they care??