Impeach Obama Protesters Return to Sa...

Impeach Obama Protesters Return to Same Overpass Where They Were Arrested

There are 13 comments on the River Front Times story from Aug 26, 2013, titled Impeach Obama Protesters Return to Same Overpass Where They Were Arrested. In it, River Front Times reports that:

The two protesters arrested on an I-70 overpass last weekend while calling for President Barack Obama's impeachment returned to very the same spot on Saturday with over 50 supporters.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at River Front Times.

Dennis Parrott

Saint Louis, MO

#1 Aug 28, 2013
Their arrest was a blatant infringement of freedom of speech.
peggy

United States

#2 Aug 28, 2013
Dennis Parrott wrote:
Their arrest was a blatant infringement of freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is only protected if it does not interfere with others I imagine people ranting on an overpass was a safety issue
guest

Ridgedale, MO

#3 Aug 29, 2013
It's a public sidewalk for crying out loud! Since when in America can one be arrested for exercising free speech in a public place?

I bet the city attorney told the police to leave the protesters alone lest they file suit against the city and win a huge award for deprivation of civil rights.
peggy

O Fallon, MO

#4 Aug 29, 2013
An overpass sidewalk is not the place it is unsafe they could have very well done the same thing at the courthouse downtown and it would have been legit
guest

Ridgedale, MO

#5 Aug 29, 2013
peggy wrote:
An overpass sidewalk is not the place it is unsafe they could have very well done the same thing at the courthouse downtown and it would have been legit
How is two guys standing on an overpass unsafe?
peggy

United States

#6 Aug 29, 2013
I believe the article said 50
guest

Ridgedale, MO

#7 Aug 29, 2013
There were 50 that returned to the overpass where the 2 men were arrested a week earlier.

So again I ask, how is it unsafe for two men to stand on an overpass?

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8 Aug 29, 2013
guest wrote:
There were 50 that returned to the overpass where the 2 men were arrested a week earlier.
So again I ask, how is it unsafe for two men to stand on an overpass?
Quit making yourself look so ignorant. Grow up some. Read about your rights & what they are, not what you "think" they are.
Hertz

Monett, MO

#9 Aug 29, 2013
"Land of the free, HOME OF THE BRAVE". AHAHAHAHAHA! What a joke. It's for the Safety.. AHAHAHAHA!
One thing about fecal matter in high places is that it flows down to the lower levels of society until it taints and destroys all morality and human empathy that may have once existed to the point where even the few good men remaining must go along just to survive and keep their job. The best way to treat government garbage is to not associate with them. Treat them like the America hating scum they are and outcast them from society. If you are a business owner you have every right to refuse service to these people. You wouldn't let your children play with wild animals so why would you let people such as these mingle within our society? These state employees have lost their own humanity so what makes you think they will have any sympathy for you and yours.
guest

Ridgedale, MO

#10 Aug 30, 2013
Intentionally Left Blank wrote:
Quit making yourself look so ignorant. Grow up some. Read about your rights & what they are, not what you "think" they are.
I'm just asking the right question to point out the fallacy of the other poster's claim that the two men were arrested for safety reasons.

As far as knowing what free speech rights are, I've studied constitutional law for over 30 years. I think I have adequate knowledge in the area. How about you?

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#11 Aug 30, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm just asking the right question to point out the fallacy of the other poster's claim that the two men were arrested for safety reasons.
As far as knowing what free speech rights are, I've studied constitutional law for over 30 years. I think I have adequate knowledge in the area. How about you?
No, I don't believe you've studied it for 30 years. You wouldn't be asking the stupid questions you are that don't pertain to this case if you had an inkling of your rights and their limits.

There were 5 accidents that happened while they were on the overpass. LE said they were interacting w/the cars below. I can't wait for a lawsuit to happen.

I'll leave alone the stupidity of their message.
guest

Ridgedale, MO

#12 Aug 30, 2013
Intentionally Left Blank wrote:
No, I don't believe you've studied it for 30 years. You wouldn't be asking the stupid questions you are that don't pertain to this case if you had an inkling of your rights and their limits.
I could care less what you believe. The fact of the matter is that I have indeed studied constitutional law for over 30 years.

Now, I’ve only asked these two questions on this thread, neither of which are stupid as you have claimed:

“Since when in America can one be arrested for exercising free speech in a public place?”

“How is it unsafe for two men to stand on an overpass?”

Now, the first question directly deals with the Constitution and the First Amendment in particular. It’s obvious the men were arrested for merely exercising their right to free speech in a public place. Look for the charges to be dismissed if they haven’t been already, and behind the scenes be sure that the City Attorney and Mayor are apologizing to those two men and pleading with them not to file a lawsuit against the city for violation of their rights and false arrest.

The second question dealt strictly with the other poster’s ridiculous claim that the men were arrested because their actions were unsafe. Notice that she ran from the thread and has refused to answer that very simple question. Why? Because that simple question very clearly defeated her ridiculous claim.
There were 5 accidents that happened while they were on the overpass.
Coincidence does not prove causality. If you had bothered to read the news story you would have found these two quotes:

"Heavy east-bound traffic had already produced a number of accidents that day."

"...the accidents were actually caused by backed-up traffic from the Festival of the Little Hills in St. Charles and construction that left only two east-bound lanes open that day."

So we see that heavy traffic, road construction and closed traffic lanes were the cause of those accidents, and not two men standing in the pedestrian walkway on an overpass.

It's obvious you just want to argue, but I don't engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man. Come back when you've educated yourself on the facts. Until then, take some good advice and remain silent while being thought a fool rather than opening your mouth and removing all doubt.
Reader

Elsah, IL

#13 Aug 31, 2013
Looks like this thread covers REAL LAW not DREAMS & MR or MISS QUEST ? has stumped the PANEL of DREAMERS & KNOW IT ALL'S .

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

St. Peters Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
warning-3 brothers roofing Dec 3 Above the law 1
Beware of Mark and Pam Hupp in O'Fallon, MO (Dec '14) Dec 1 Sunshine0609 191
Ofallon people can't dance (Jan '15) Nov 28 Moron Finder 7
Should I let my white daughter date a black boy ? (Jul '10) Nov 26 Jerwmy 183
What is new release videos in stcharles Nov 17 Kohnnywam 1
News Sex Offender Halloween law draws praise, criticism (Oct '14) Nov '16 misterdee 7
3-some kyle, derek, jacob Nov '16 misterdee 1

St. Peters Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

St. Peters Mortgages