Post by Sheila on Apr 30, 2024 15:23:03 GMT -5
Watch the news about the pro-Palestinian protests taking place at college campuses around the United States. At least two have moved from being peaceful protests to being hostile takeovers of buildings on the campuses. These aren't actions protected by the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The administrations of the colleges need to stop treating the people as protestors and start treating them like the criminals they've become. If you haven't watched the news lately, you may wondering what I'm talking about.
At Columbia University, a group of protestors broke into Hamilton Hall. They didn't just walk into the building. The doors were locked, they had no keys, and they had to force their way. After entering the building, they used whatever was available to bar the doors so no one else could enter the building. They claim they won't leave until their demands are met (which I won't get into at this time). Still other protestors are standing arm in arm outside the building acting as a shield to prevent anyone from getting near the doors and possibly getting inside to remove the protestors who took over the building. The same thing is happening at Portland State University (PSU) where the protestors broke into and are now occupying Miller Library.
Some of the Democrats and some of the reporters for the liberal media are labeling these two incidents as riots. Are they really riots? Most people think of riots as looting, fighting, burning buildings, and destroying property. While these things can be present at riots, a riot is when any group of people become violent. So far, most of these protestors haven't committed acts of violence and have caused only minimal property damage. So some people may call these actions a riot; however, I'd call it a hostile takeover. Using either term can suffice. What no one on the left of the political spectrum has yet to do is label the people involved the proper way. These people are no longer protestors, they're now criminals. With some of the laws being broken, they can also be labeled as felons if tried and convicted of some of the crimes.
Here are just of some of the laws being broken:
- breaking and entering
- criminal trespass which is entering or remaining on someone else’s property without permission or the right to do so
- additional charges for damage caused while committing criminal trespass
- felony criminal mischief which is a substantial interruption or impairment of a public service (in this case, operation of the colleges)
These hostile takeovers should have never happened. The administrators of the two colleges tried negotiating with the protestors. They kept setting deadlines for them to move off campus and didn't enforce the deadlines. The more time they take to talk to these people, the more the criminals demand. Instead of saying enough is enough and not allowing the people who did leave when asked to regather on campus, the people came back in larger numbers with every intent to do exactly what they did. Now, instead of sending in law enforcement to physically remove the criminals, they're closing down the colleges to the students, professors, and staff who have every right to be there until they decide how to handle the people who have no right to be taking over the buildings.
How should this be handled from this point forward. At both Columbia and PSU, the people inside the buildings should be given a couple hours to walk out peacefully. There should be no extending the deadline. At the end of the two hours, law enforcement should breach the doors, use tear gas if needed, drag out the people, arrest them, prosecute them, and send them to jail. The same thing should be done on any other campus or at any other place where people are involved with the hostile takeover of any building or outside space. Until these people have to face the consequences of breaking the law, they'll keep on doing the same thing whether it's at the same college or they move on to another location.
How far does this have to go before it's stopped? Does a building have to be burned down or someone killed first?
At Columbia University, a group of protestors broke into Hamilton Hall. They didn't just walk into the building. The doors were locked, they had no keys, and they had to force their way. After entering the building, they used whatever was available to bar the doors so no one else could enter the building. They claim they won't leave until their demands are met (which I won't get into at this time). Still other protestors are standing arm in arm outside the building acting as a shield to prevent anyone from getting near the doors and possibly getting inside to remove the protestors who took over the building. The same thing is happening at Portland State University (PSU) where the protestors broke into and are now occupying Miller Library.
Some of the Democrats and some of the reporters for the liberal media are labeling these two incidents as riots. Are they really riots? Most people think of riots as looting, fighting, burning buildings, and destroying property. While these things can be present at riots, a riot is when any group of people become violent. So far, most of these protestors haven't committed acts of violence and have caused only minimal property damage. So some people may call these actions a riot; however, I'd call it a hostile takeover. Using either term can suffice. What no one on the left of the political spectrum has yet to do is label the people involved the proper way. These people are no longer protestors, they're now criminals. With some of the laws being broken, they can also be labeled as felons if tried and convicted of some of the crimes.
Here are just of some of the laws being broken:
- breaking and entering
- criminal trespass which is entering or remaining on someone else’s property without permission or the right to do so
- additional charges for damage caused while committing criminal trespass
- felony criminal mischief which is a substantial interruption or impairment of a public service (in this case, operation of the colleges)
These hostile takeovers should have never happened. The administrators of the two colleges tried negotiating with the protestors. They kept setting deadlines for them to move off campus and didn't enforce the deadlines. The more time they take to talk to these people, the more the criminals demand. Instead of saying enough is enough and not allowing the people who did leave when asked to regather on campus, the people came back in larger numbers with every intent to do exactly what they did. Now, instead of sending in law enforcement to physically remove the criminals, they're closing down the colleges to the students, professors, and staff who have every right to be there until they decide how to handle the people who have no right to be taking over the buildings.
How should this be handled from this point forward. At both Columbia and PSU, the people inside the buildings should be given a couple hours to walk out peacefully. There should be no extending the deadline. At the end of the two hours, law enforcement should breach the doors, use tear gas if needed, drag out the people, arrest them, prosecute them, and send them to jail. The same thing should be done on any other campus or at any other place where people are involved with the hostile takeover of any building or outside space. Until these people have to face the consequences of breaking the law, they'll keep on doing the same thing whether it's at the same college or they move on to another location.
How far does this have to go before it's stopped? Does a building have to be burned down or someone killed first?
Copyright © 2024 by Sheila Rae Myers