Like the cases of not breaking laws about sitting in certain parts of a bus, or laws about not making own sea-salt in India, or laws about not talking against the Powers That Be in East Europe…?
Law is nothing holy to bow to and blindly obey all the time. Nor it is even possible, with all the laws and bylaws and regulations that even professional lawyers can’t make much sense of.
Well, quite 
Are you honestly trying to suggest that this is a conspiracy coverup?
That Ms. Flores simply got too close to the truth, and so “They” had to silence her, and so intead of doing so in a way that wouldn’t leave loose ends, they decided to go through the legal system and place her under a restraining order, knowing that she would inevitably violate it and get herself locked away?
I’m sorry, I need to go lie down, I think my faith in humanity just died a little.
You don’t need any conspiracy here. You just need a judge who is ideologically in the same boat as the base commander, and is not unwilling to bend the law up to its yield strength and use its provisions intended against domestic violence for keeping protesters out of sight.
No, I think the thrust of the argument is that the military got pissed off with her, so they threw the book as her as hard as they effectively could. That is a thing that happens. A lot. The Law isn’t perfect, and a lot of the time, it is made, and enacted, by people without your best interests at heart. You do love that Just World though, don’t you?
(edited for spleling failz)
I honestly believe that she has been stitched up proper, yes.
No cover up required, she broke the law, that you seem so eager to defend.
I don’t believe that she “got to close to the truth” more like a nuisance that allowed people to apply the law in a most officious manner.
The only humanity that died here was vicious use of the judicial system.
There is a difference between laws which are clearly enacted for the purpose of oppression like those you cite, and laws clearly enacted to handle problematic criminal behaviors like the laws providing for the issuance of Restraining Orders.
Rosa Parks and Gandhi specifically broke the laws they were protesting against, and their doing so brought attention to the absurdity of those specific laws, influencing public sentiment against them.
In contrast, the laws Ms. Flores broke had nothing to do with what she was protesting. No one thinks Restraining Orders are a bad idea, or somehow wrong - they are in fact immensely useful tools for dealing with problematic individuals who fall into a rather odd area of minor destructive behavior.
The two situations are incomparable. No one was stopping Ms. Flores from protesting. She could protest all she wanted so long as she didn’t violate her Restraining Order. She also could protest all she wanted so long as she didn’t violate any other laws which apply to her. How is the issue of the Restraining Order exceptional in any way whatsoever?
If Rosa Parks had gone and robbed a bank to protest the bus laws, no one would have given her any sympathy, because we all agree that robbing banks ought to be illegal. Why should we give Ms. Flores sympathy for violating her Restraining Order? We all agree that violating a Restraining Order ought to be illegal.
I don’t believe violating a Restraining Order need be illegal.
Glitch, do you believe that this lady should be doing a twelve month stretch for violating this order?
You’ve clearly never known someone who has been stalked, or suffered domestic abuse. There are plenty of people who only sleep well at night because they know that their abusers will face consequences if they violate the Restraining Orders issued against them.
I honestly don’t know what to believe about this particular case. I honestly lack the details to make a sound judgement.
You, on the other hand, seem quite willing to jump to the worst possible conclusion that fits your preconceived notions.
This, I think, is where a lot of people get frustrated with me. I try to presume the innocence of every party in a given controversy for as long as I can. As evidence builds against their innocence, I naturally revise my opinion, but so long as I do lack sufficient evidence, I refuse to pass judgement.
However, when I see others passing judgements which I believe they cannot possibly have a rational basis for, I challenge those judgements and ask them to supply the evidence which led them to their conclusions. Sometimes they convince me - other times they do not.
I believe others typically perceive this as me “defending the bad guys”, and people become offended at the thought that I would “side with” the party they believe to be in the wrong.
In truth, however, I almost always haven’t “sided with” anyone - I’ve merely insisted upon presuming innocence until I have seen sufficient proof of guilt.
I also seek as much as I can to apply my judgements universally, and independent of my personal biases. I try to be just as willing to “defend” people I disagree with as I am those of a like mind with myself. I also try to do the opposite, condemning the proveable wrongdoings of those I sympathise as much as I would condemn those of someone I despise.
Here is a snippet from her statement at sentencing: [quote]Your honor, a series of judicial perversions brings me here before you tonight.
First, I was convicted of violating an order of protection that represents a perversion of its intended use to protect victims of domestic violence. This order allegedly protects the commander of a military base who said himself under oath that he neither knows me nor needs protection from me. The real purpose of this order is to stifle dissent at the base.[/quote]
The emphasis is mine.
Later in her statement we get the following [quote]… an acting Supreme Court judge ruled that the Order of Protection is invalid because its language is excessively vague and it shows no evidence of any threat[/quote]
I don’t agree that violating this restraining order ought to be illegal.
The complete article can be found here. Shaddack already posted this link above, but I’m repeating it for your convenience.
The laws I cited weren’t intended for oppression. One was for keeping the social order (with the oppression being incidental to that), and the other to keep profits of Crown-friendly businessmen, the equivalents of today’s corporations (and the oppression was also incidental).
At most $all-1 - I agree it should be illegal in case some actual risk is present (e.g. a vengeful ex). Not in case that involves the First Amendment right to free speech, and consequently the right to protest. What harm did she cause or threaten by being present on the other side of the road for a couple minutes?
What if we can construe her action to protest an unfair, Free Speech stifling abuse of Restraining Orders? Then all your counterarguments can be applied to this case.
So, you are not the type of person that would go out on a limb? rather, seek comfort in the status quo? not rock the boat? and maintain abusive legal system?
You don’t frustrate me. Just trying to work out what type of person you are.
No one forced her to violate her Restraining Order.
A single protester has a Restraining Order filed against her, among countless others. Why her alone? If you’re actively silencing dissent, why only one of many? What would be the point?
If you’re actively silencing dissent, why file a Restraining Order? All a person has to do to not go to jail is not enter onto the property they the order bars them from entering. They can still protest all they want, about whatever they want, anywhere else they want. A restraining order is so limited in scope that it would act as no real hindrance to a dissenter’s cause.
It doesn’t make sense. It is so far from reasonable as to be absurd. Anyone who truly wanted to silence dissent would have to be unbelievably incompetant to go about doing so in a way that would be so completely and utterly ineffectual.
I’ve read both, thank you.
And I’m certain that there are plenty of abusive spouses who don’t agree that violating their restraining orders ought to be illegal either.
Please tell me, why should anyone make an extra-legal exception for your opinion, but not theirs?
Despite what the story is really about, a title like “Drone protesting grandmother gets a year in prison in Syracuse” suggests that a drone had some beef against its grandmother (perhaps an Airfix model?) and was thrown in prison for it.
Because often when you cripple the leaders’ ability to be present and to inspire others, you decapitate the movement.
Now conveniently out of sight, easy to be ignored, easy to just wait them out until their energy is spent and they go home while the drones drone their business-as-usual. Status quo conserved, everybody happy.
You don’t want to silence dissent. You do this, and people seethe quietly, and the pent-up energy gets to be released in one massive burst. You want to keep the dissenters able to spend their energy on The Cause, but also want it to be as ineffectual as possible while still displaying outward signs of being a Free Country.
I don’t believe you have any rational basis for imagining “what type of person” I am. Your argumentation is getting decidedly close to personal attacks, and I strongly advise you to tread carefully.
I said exactly what I meant - that I object to people leaping to conclusions, passing judgement, and handing out condemnation without adequate evidence and blind to their own biases, and that I attempt to challenge such conclusions and judgements where I perceive them.
My contributions in this thread have been in the pursuit of facts, and in the dispelling of misconceptions and assumptions. I may or may not have strayed from that pursuit to one degree or another, but it was and is my focal point.
That might tell you something about the “type of person” I am, but I honestly believe that your approach to understanding me is fundamentally flawed. Label me however you choose, but I suspect I will continue to cause you problems over time as I fail to fit neatly into the categories of your preconceived notions.
This is all quite staggeringly off-topic, however. Hence, if you have anything else to talk about other than your opinion of me personally, I suggest we discuss that instead now.
Not sure where you see any sort of personal attacks, but hey ho, back on topic.
Headline looks accurate to me.
Looks to be quite an abusive use of the legal system.
The lady is going to prison for nout.
Given @HMSGoose’s description, it would seem Ms Flores could well be viewed as something of a rabble-rouser or ringleader, and in the current climate it’s not entirely implausible she’s being made an example of. Chilling effects.
Yes, because clearly Ms. Flores was the vital, irreplaceable grand leader of the protesters, and clearly she couldn’t associate with her fellow protestors anywhere except the exact places she was legally barred from entering by her Restraining Order.
Yes, because clearly the only place a protest against drone usage is not “out of sight” is at the very gates of an active military base. It’s such a pity that such protests can’t effectively take place anywhere else at all.
Except there’s this little thing called the Streisand Effect.
The military isn’t stupid. If they honestly were attempting to do exactly as you claim, they would handle it in the quietest way possible - by letting the protesters protest.
Honestly, who protests at a military base? I mean, who do these protesters honestly think they’re going to influence? The soldiers and military staff on the base? It’s not like there’s anyone else around to see you protesting.
The single most effective way to waste the protesters time would be to leave them be, not take action against them which spawns a bunch of news articles. A bunch of people waving signs outside a military base isn’t going to influence people nearly as much as a wave of negative press about the actions you take against them will.
If the military honestly wanted to deprive these people of their voice, this is one of the stupidest ways imaginable to do it. Had you even heard about these protests before this article? I certainly hadn’t.
This isn’t Occupy Wallstreet or the Arab Spring - this is a small local community protest inexplicably being held in a location removed from anyone who might care about it. How much more obscure can a protest get?
