The following story from the Raleigh News & Observer outlines Raleigh’s Mayor Charles Meeker thoughts on the arrests of eight occupiers at the Capitol. Mayor Meeker was not happy because Raleigh police aided Capitol police without an assault on a Capitol police officer? Maybe we should clarify the role of the Raleigh police, State police, Capitol police and the General Assembly police in Raleigh so that his confusion will not impede one set of police assisting another set of police in the future.
David DeGerolamo
Arrests at Occupy Raleigh concern Meeker
The arrests of eight people Thursday at an Occupy Raleigh protest did not sit well with Mayor Charles Meeker.
Meeker said it was his understanding that Raleigh police would get involved only “if there were an assault on a Capitol Police Officer or other similar disturbance.”
But a different scenario played out. City officers aided Capitol Police in arresting eight people, including a disabled woman sitting on a chair, after the demonstrators refused to leave a sidewalk in front of the Capitol.
“The City Council needs to provide guidance” to city brass on how to balance the rights to assembly and free speech with the need for orderly conduct, Meeker wrote in a memo to his colleagues Friday. “I am concerned that the constitutional rights are not being given adequate weight.”
A protest leader said Occupy Raleigh had contacted City Manager Russell Allen for help but found that Allen’s hands were tied because the sidewalk falls under the jurisdiction of Capitol Police.
Meeker said he wants to know more about what the state police have asked Raleigh officers to do. The mayor will bring the issue up for discussion at Tuesday’s City Council meeting at 1 p.m.
“…to balance the rights to assembly and free speech with the need for orderly conduct, Meeker wrote in a memo to his colleagues Friday. “I am concerned that the constitutional rights are not being given adequate weight.”
Yes, Mayor, you should be concerned. Your city has TRAMPLED on the constitution and the unalienable rights of its citizens.
To stand at an event on the capitol grounds, I am told I must submit to Statutes of NC and the Ordinances of Raleigh which strip me of some of my Rights for the privilege of permitting me to exercise others. One should never have to surrender one Right to exercise another.
Our State and City have passed laws that attempt to make our human rights mutually exclusive. If I want to peacefully assemble to picket I must not be armed. If I am armed, I must distance myself from locations where free speech is exercised. This is philosophically and morally wrong.
It is unreasonable to relinquish my Right to defend my life where I go to speak my mind. We have been conditioned to choose between options that are or seem equally unfavorable or mutually exclusive.
For each artificial constraint placed upon me, I now ask a simple question:
WWFMD ? ( What Would a Free Man Do ? )
https://ncrenegade.com//editorial/wwfmd-2/
A free man would apply a test of ‘reasonability’ to the constraints forced upon his choices.
From today forward, I will examine my motives and actions to ensure they are in compliance with the underlying principles of civil behavior and common law.
IF I am satisfied that I do not intend to
■ initiate force (breach the peace)
■ injure another (physical, mental or economic damage)
■ encroach (on persons or their property)
THEN I will
■ proceed with my business
■ conduct myself with dignity
■ be swift to exercise retaliatory force
■ be responsible for consequences of my actions,
Despite restrictions or constraints that the State, City and various “officials” attempt to impose on me, I will no longer voluntarily surrender unalienable Rights.
———————————-
If you feel opposed, angry, or just confused regarding my assertion, please read the following:
What Are Unalienable Rights?
http://dumpdc.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/what-are-unalienable-rights/
A comment about “unalienablae rights” with interpretation:
http://arcticpatriot.blogspot.com/2011/10/dump-dc-what-are-unalienable-rights.html