["Funny"] I've thought of several funny semi-violent responses...
Get five or ten street-boys to jizz in a squirt gun, use said squirt gun to "anoint" WBC while holding "WBC shows gay spunk as Phred hoped" sign.
Get geek to factor wind biases and then use "Bear Spray" suitably up-wind.
[Serious] But in truth, if WBC ever showed up in my region I would file a "reckless child endangerment" complaint against them with the department of child and family services. They are clearly trying to incite violence with "fighting words", to the degree that the cops have to show up to protect them. They are also using their children basically as "human shields" by bringing them, and putting them in harm's way, without regard to the safety of the minor children.
If they _don't_ think that the children would be in danger, why do they pre-arrange police protection?
I think WBC needs to be dragged through family court whenever they show up with kids and make them hold signs that inspire people to punch people in the face.
If the adults want to do it, then fine. But not the kids.
Your serious side has some fatal flaws. Thorwing a kid out of an airplane with a tarp and some ropes would be reckless endangerment (if not homicide). Having the kid go to school and learn to skydive, getting him certified and letting him practice at sanctioned airports would mitigate the endangerment. So would having police protection.
Think of having the police protection being the difference between making the kid go out and street fight verses enrolling into a martial arts form and then attending and com
So if someone harms one of the kids then the reckless endangerment kicks in?
That seems less than ideal.
And I know for a fact that WBC has been physically attacked while on protest. In particular some WBC idiot stamping on a american flag got his ass beat more or less in front of the police by a good ol' boy in eastern washington. The police sauntered over and stopped things in their own time.
As for what CPS could do, and the lawsuits that result, you would be surprised at how long it can take to unsnarl CPS
So if someone harms one of the kids then the reckless endangerment kicks in?
No, the potential for harm has to be likely. Likely as in probably. With the police providing security, it's not likely one of them will be harmed.
And I know for a fact that WBC has been physically attacked while on protest. In particular some WBC idiot stamping on a american flag got his ass beat more or less in front of the police by a good ol' boy in eastern washington. The police sauntered over and stopped things in their own
Veni, Vidi, VISA:
I came, I saw, I did a little shopping.
Worthless summary (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
This shouldn't even be a story. Not even on idle.
Fred Phelps and his followers should be dragged out behind the barn, and put out of everyone's misery.
People claim that violence has never solved anything - but a good, solid dose lead in his ear would solve all of Phelp's problems.
Re: (Score:5, Informative)
Important note: The Westboro asshats want you to get violent at their protests. That way they can sue you to fund their activities.
-
Ironic pseudoviolence...? What of the Children? (Score:3, Insightful)
["Funny"]
I've thought of several funny semi-violent responses...
Get five or ten street-boys to jizz in a squirt gun, use said squirt gun to "anoint" WBC while holding "WBC shows gay spunk as Phred hoped" sign.
Get geek to factor wind biases and then use "Bear Spray" suitably up-wind.
[Serious]
But in truth, if WBC ever showed up in my region I would file a "reckless child endangerment" complaint against them with the department of child and family services. They are clearly trying to incite violence with "fighting words", to the degree that the cops have to show up to protect them. They are also using their children basically as "human shields" by bringing them, and putting them in harm's way, without regard to the safety of the minor children.
If they _don't_ think that the children would be in danger, why do they pre-arrange police protection?
I think WBC needs to be dragged through family court whenever they show up with kids and make them hold signs that inspire people to punch people in the face.
If the adults want to do it, then fine. But not the kids.
Re: (Score:1)
Your serious side has some fatal flaws. Thorwing a kid out of an airplane with a tarp and some ropes would be reckless endangerment (if not homicide). Having the kid go to school and learn to skydive, getting him certified and letting him practice at sanctioned airports would mitigate the endangerment. So would having police protection.
Think of having the police protection being the difference between making the kid go out and street fight verses enrolling into a martial arts form and then attending and com
Re: (Score:2)
So if someone harms one of the kids then the reckless endangerment kicks in?
That seems less than ideal.
And I know for a fact that WBC has been physically attacked while on protest. In particular some WBC idiot stamping on a american flag got his ass beat more or less in front of the police by a good ol' boy in eastern washington. The police sauntered over and stopped things in their own time.
As for what CPS could do, and the lawsuits that result, you would be surprised at how long it can take to unsnarl CPS
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No, the potential for harm has to be likely. Likely as in probably. With the police providing security, it's not likely one of them will be harmed.