Started By
Message
re: Auburn's main entrance vandalized with graffiti?
Posted on 10/7/24 at 12:45 pm to PJinAtl
Posted on 10/7/24 at 12:45 pm to PJinAtl
quote:
However, that right does not allow you to deface public property or private property that is not yours.
Nobody questioned that.
quote:
Secondly, really, to do it as the 1 year anniversary of the October 7th massacre is approaching.
What does the American flag have to do with the vandalism?
1
Posted on 10/7/24 at 2:03 pm to jangalang
Posted on 10/7/24 at 2:09 pm to slacker130
American Nazis were allowed to march through jewish neighborhoods according to supreme court in the 70's I think and we are beating up one smuck on a public campus. lol
Anybody here know if this dude can sue?
Anybody here know if this dude can sue?
Posted on 10/7/24 at 2:15 pm to jangalang
quote:
Anybody here know if this dude can sue?
Rumor is that they/them threw the first punch and camo hat just responded.
ETA- rumor seems wrong based on new info.
This post was edited on 10/7/24 at 2:28 pm
Posted on 10/7/24 at 2:18 pm to jangalang
The article says the counter protestor shoved the protestor. Then the protestor came back with a punch then got his arse kicked.
People pulled them apart and the counter protestor ran. Protestor refused to press charges or give any details about what happened to police.
Weird situation. On one hand the protestor probably deserved to get his arse beat but then ends up doing the honorable thing of not pressing charges and keeping it out of the police’s hands.
On the other, counter protestor probably instigated shite, handled his business, then runs away scared.
Then you got the photographer who apparently just sees this happening and first thought is “oh let me take some cool pics”
Basically, I’m rooting against everyone involved in the whole thing
People pulled them apart and the counter protestor ran. Protestor refused to press charges or give any details about what happened to police.
Weird situation. On one hand the protestor probably deserved to get his arse beat but then ends up doing the honorable thing of not pressing charges and keeping it out of the police’s hands.
On the other, counter protestor probably instigated shite, handled his business, then runs away scared.
Then you got the photographer who apparently just sees this happening and first thought is “oh let me take some cool pics”
Basically, I’m rooting against everyone involved in the whole thing
This post was edited on 10/7/24 at 2:20 pm
Posted on 10/7/24 at 2:27 pm to Weagle25
quote:
Basically, I’m rooting against everyone involved in the whole thing
I can support.
Some men just want to watch the world burn.
Posted on 10/7/24 at 2:36 pm to Weagle25
quote:Yep! Pretty pathetic of our American hero.
Basically, I’m rooting against everyone involved in the whole thing
Posted on 10/7/24 at 2:40 pm to jangalang
He tried that in a small town.
Posted on 10/7/24 at 3:07 pm to Weagle25
quote:
Then you got the photographer who apparently just sees this happening and first thought is “oh let me take some cool pics”
Basically, I’m rooting against everyone involved in the whole thing
I'm going with freedom of the press for the picture taker ?
And if it's worth a million words that's 500,000 either way.
Posted on 10/7/24 at 3:19 pm to jangalang
quote:
American Nazis were allowed to march through jewish neighborhoods according to supreme court in the 70's I think and we are beating up one smuck on a public campus. lol
Anybody here know if this dude can sue?
Who would he sue?
He could potentially file a lawsuit against the counter-protestor for medical bills/lost wages if he was injured.
The University didn't stop him from protesting, so he can't sue for his 1st amendment rights being infringed by a government entity. Again, free speech is one thing, but 1st amendment does not allow for defacing public property.
Posted on 10/7/24 at 3:25 pm to PJinAtl
quote:Why are you so stuck on this? Who condones this? Are we sure this is the graffiti guy that got his arse kicked anyway.
Again, free speech is one thing, but 1st amendment does not allow for defacing public property.
Posted on 10/7/24 at 3:32 pm to awestruck
quote:
I'm going with freedom of the press for the picture taker ?
Not sure what freedom of the press has to do with my opinion of what happened.
I didn’t say the photographer should’ve been arrested. I just find it weird to sit there and take pictures of a guy getting an arse beating.
When the guy is facedown covering his head not fighting back, it’s time to break it up.
Posted on 10/7/24 at 3:37 pm to jangalang
quote:
Why are you so stuck on this? Who condones this?.
You asked if he would sue. The guy answered with the only thing the university stopped him from doing is not legal (defacing public property). I don’t think that qualifies as being stuck on it. It directly relates to your question. I’m not sure if sidewalk chalk qualifies as defacing
quote:
Are we sure this is the graffiti guy that got his arse kicked anyway.
No one’s takes 5 seconds to read articles anymore? Yes.
One of the guys basically was asked by the cops to move across the street. He moved. Cops leave. Fight happens. Cops come back.
This post was edited on 10/7/24 at 3:40 pm
Posted on 10/7/24 at 3:38 pm to jangalang
quote:
Why are you so stuck on this? Who condones this? Are we sure this is the graffiti guy that got his arse kicked anyway.
I'm not stuck on it. I was just replying to your comment about SCOTUS allowing the American Nazi Party to march through Jewish neighborhoods. That's protected free speech. But they did not say it was ok to vandalize anything.
No idea if graffiti guy was who got his arse kicked or not. My guess (based on what I saw on the screenshots from the camera) was that it took multiple people to mark up not only the gate posts but the sidewalk on the corner as well.
Posted on 10/7/24 at 3:48 pm to Weagle25
quote:
I didn’t say the photographer should’ve been arrested. I just find it weird to sit there and take pictures of a guy getting an arse beating.
Based on the Twitter post from earlier it was the photo editor for The Plainsman that took the pictures. I'm far from a journalist, but I do remember reading that they are really not supposed to get involved, only document/report.
For example the famous photo of the vulture stalking the young starving child in Sudan. The photographer took multiple pictures and maybe afterward tried to help the child.
Is it right? No. Is it ethical? No. But that is part of the case of being a neutral observer.
MLK actually chastised a photographer for stepping in to help children being shoved by police during the Selma to Montgomery march. King said it would have been better to have photographs of the atrocities being committed."
Posted on 10/7/24 at 4:35 pm to Weagle25
quote:
You asked if he would sue. The guy answered with the only thing the university stopped him from doing is not legal (defacing public property).
Just for the record initally I meant could he sue the student, not the University. As for defacing the object, On top of this page I said I knew that was not legal or protected, so I figured that was PJ who said that again since he started his reply to me with "Again,..." And he told me this before I even knew about the fight, when it looked like people brought an American flag to grafitti crime.
No, I havent read any articles. Didnt even know there was an article until your post led me to find there was an article connected with the three or four photos.
This post was edited on 10/7/24 at 4:41 pm
Posted on 10/7/24 at 5:34 pm to slacker130
That’s definitely a 10-8 round by Blake.
I can for sure say Blake indeed did beat his arse
I can for sure say Blake indeed did beat his arse
Posted on 10/7/24 at 9:07 pm to CorchJay
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. I’ve never seen weaker punches than the ones the protestor threw
This post was edited on 10/7/24 at 9:08 pm
Posted on 10/7/24 at 10:26 pm to jangalang
quote:
What I saw yesterday was graffiti. Did something else happen?
yeah more than graffiti. That is a call for genocide. Graffiti is typically not calling for the extermination of a race. Sorry if you can't see that...
Posted on 10/8/24 at 6:12 am to 88TIger
quote:
Graffiti is typically not calling for the extermination of a race. Sorry if you can't see that...
What a dumb argument you going on and on about. Graffiti is a crime.
In a whiny voice "graffiti doesn't typically include" Let me stop you right there: WHO GIVES A frick ITS PURPLE CHALK GRAFFITI.
Your assholes are so uptight that you're staging counter protests of purple chalk.
This post was edited on 10/8/24 at 6:36 am
Page 2 of 3
Latest Auburn News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News