Pete Santilli Episode # 965 - Baltimore Protester & Reporter Filing Major Lawsuit Against B.P.D.

• published: 27 Apr 2015
• views: 406

In this episode of The Pete Santilli Show: Scheduled for Apr 27, 2015 Independent Media Reporter and activistJames McArthur, along with others who feel their safety was put in jeopardy by the City of Baltimore and the B.P.D., are seeking legal remedy from The Rutherford Institute today. After what started out as a peaceful protest on Saturday - April 25th, 2015 turned to induced chaos by the city of Baltimore PD, protesters had their constitutional right to free speech and assembly were violated by being corraled and forced to disperse with immenent threat of bodily harm and arrest. GLASSON v. CITY OF LOUISVILLE Every person who, under color of any statute, regulation, custom or usage of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and the laws shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. This statute imposes on the states and their agents certain obligations and responsibilities. A police officer has the duty not to ratify and effectuate a heckler's veto nor may he join a moiling mob intent on suppressing ideas. Instead, he must take reasonable action to protect from violence persons exercising their constitutional rights. E.g., Sellers v. Johnson, 163 F.2d 877 (8th Cir. 1947), Cottonreader v. Johnson, 252 F. Supp. 492 (M.D.Ala. 1966). And, in the absence of a speaker's exhortation to violence, in carefully defined circumstances, "state officials are not entitled to rely on community hostility as an excuse not to protect, by inaction or affirmative conduct, the exercise of fundamental rights." Smith v. Ross, 482 F.2d 33,37 (6th Cir. 1973). Accord, e.g., Gregory v. Chicago, 394 U.S. 111, 119, 89 S.Ct. 946, 22 L.Ed.2d 134 (1969) (Black, J., concurring) and cases cited therein.5 *907907 5. In Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 69 S.Ct. 894,93 L.Ed. 1131 (1949), for example a speaker, whose ideas had caused a violent reaction from some members of his audience, was convicted of violating an ordinance that prohibited any activity that "`stirs the public to anger, invites dispute, brings about a condition of unrest, or creates a disturbance, or if it molests the inhabitants in the enjoyment of peace and quiet by arousing alarm.'" Id. at 3. In reversing the conviction, the Court observed that ". . . a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed serve its highest purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger." Id. at 4. Please subscribe to our main YouTube channel for important news reports and analysis: https://www.youtube.com/user/PeterSantilliTV Full article & audio archive: Like Us On Facebook! http://LikePeteOnFacebook.com Download free high quality copy of The Pete Santilli Show: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-pete-santilli-show/id985487192 Please be sure to comment, share, like and subscribe! Live Call-In Line: Tel 605-562-3140 Code: 407265 Live 24/7 Listener Line 712-432-7848 The Pete Santilli Show broadcasts live Mon thru Sat 10am-1pm PST /12pm-3pm CST / 1pm-4pm EST The Pete Santilli Show is now Spreaker.com's #1 radio show worldwide! http://ow.ly/l7Ma1 *** Help keep The Pete Santilli Show on the air! Please contribute to our monthly operating fund: http://gofund.me/GMNopfund Please also visit our sponsors: The Taco Rack - Made In America! http://TacoRack.com Pete’s Vaping Starter Kit http://gmnvape.com Lose Weight with Life Change Tea http://GetTheTea.com