Re: Who should pay for extra costs incurred for demonstrations on Private Property?

Again the state Supreme Court did not grant the right to protest on Mall property...  

On Thursday, January 1, 2015 3:11:09 PM UTC-5, Fart In The Wind wrote:

I think anyone whose views, and ideology is like yours should be taxed in to extreme poverty.  

On Thursday, January 1, 2015 7:48:45 AM UTC-8, jgg1000a wrote:

'Black Lives Matter" held a protest in Mall of America, in part because it is the most visible venue locally...   City provided protection... Mall of America is private property...   Protestors billed for cost of protection...  Are Crusaders for Justice acting in an injustice way???

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/12/30/black-lives-matter-demonstrators-billed-for-mall-of-america-trespass/?singlepage=true

>>>

That said, police protection does come at a cost which someone has to pay. Who morally should?

Shouldn't the aggressor cover the expense? Why should it fall upon the victim? Why should it fall upon taxpayers?

No one is "making money" in this scenario. The city will likely never get its money, as these organizers probably don't have it. But even if they did, restitution isn't profit. It's restitution.

The idea is to balance the scales of justice. Those who act aggressively in violation of the rights of others should be punished through criminal charge, civil restitution, or both. If protestors are going to wield the term "justice" as a rhetorical tool, they should at least act as if they believe it universally matters.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Political Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to abc_politics_forum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.