Thursday, December 8, 2011

Police arrest 62 as occupy protesters target lobbyists- Sean Cabral

Police arrested 62 protestors for blocking off several blocks of K street in Washington. In the constitution it says that one of the rights we have is to peacefully protest. Was the right of these people to protest violated because they were arrested?
Posted by at

11 comments:

  1. tomdevineDecember 10, 2011 at 1:05 PM

    I think the only person who should have gotten into trouble was the person who physically attacked the officer.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AutumnDecember 11, 2011 at 1:05 PM

    no, i don't think that it was right for them to get arrested. since the Constitution says that they can peacefully protect then there is no need for them to get arrested, except for the guy who attacked the police officer.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Macie WilliamsDecember 11, 2011 at 4:19 PM

    I do not think their rights were violated, I think they deserved to be arrested. I don't think this is considered "peacefully protesting" because they were blocking off several blocks and inconveniencing others.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Aimee FarquharsonDecember 11, 2011 at 4:57 PM

    there is defiantly a difference between peaceful protest and protest that you can be arrested for, but i also think that protest is an essential way that anything will ever change in this country and i think that police should not intervene as quickly when protesters are only "inconveniencing others" i think the only time police should intervene is when it becomes harmful to others.

    ReplyDelete
  5. mary saffiotiDecember 14, 2011 at 11:36 AM

    No the right wasn't violated they were allowing them to protest but when the safety of others comes into play authorities have to come into action to protect the well being of the citizens. If they were going to peacefully protest that's fine but when they start getting violent or creating problems they should be arrested.

    ReplyDelete
  6. jodiDecember 14, 2011 at 4:23 PM

    I think some should have gotten arrested but not all. They were not causing any violence (from what I know) but someone assaulted a police officer and that isn't tolerated. They were blocking off roads and that caused frustration for the people trying to get through and couldn't but because there was not any severe violence breaking out so i think in a way their rights were violated. But that was not really considered "peaceful" protesting in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  7. gavin lewisDecember 15, 2011 at 4:36 AM

    I think they should have all been arrested for not moving when the police officer told them to move. And the one who assaulted the officer should obviously been arrested.

    ReplyDelete
  8. TscerraDecember 15, 2011 at 4:43 AM

    i believe that they all deserved to be arrested for not cooperating with the police.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jeremy SmithDecember 15, 2011 at 8:07 AM

    No there rights weren't violated in any way. The protectors where abusing there rights of protest. They where causing a public disturbance and that is why the police got involved.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Donasheed2December 16, 2011 at 9:03 AM

    No there rights weren't affected at all as protestors the forced it in and didn't listen to the agreement and got into public area's and cause many probblems thus breaking the laws.

    ReplyDelete
  11. zackJanuary 18, 2012 at 11:49 AM

    By not following a policeman's orders you can get arrested so the protesters rights were not violated because they did not listen to the policemen.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)