I no longer buy Tyson chicken, ever. I really hope these people are sueing the crap out of this police department. Someone needs to look into the finances of that Chief, too. I'm betting he has more money than he can explain, tucked away.

The lesson here is that it worked. You get what you tolerate. Welcome to mob rule, Dearborn.

It was intersting near the end of the video how the cops couldn't spare officers to protect this group, but, they had a dozen or so cops follow them as they left and then pulled them over in their mini-van.

Which shows why they wrote into the U.S. constitution the right to keep and bear arms.

If the cops can not/WILL NOT protect you then you need to protect yourself.

Ugh. I feel sick now. I also want to join them next year. This video needs to be seen by every freedom loving person in this country. I am so disgusted. There really no words to describe what I am feeling right now.

The second smartest thing Gregg ever did was leave the Detroit area. (The first was go to the Apple Store on the right day.)

Who wants to lay odds that the Justice Dept wont look into this?

Do circumstances exist in which we do not need more law, but, rather, we simply need responsible citizens to impose their will, via force if necessary?

For instance, do we really need more laws in order to deal with the Christian church which protests at the funerals of fallen military? Or, do we simply need responsible citizens to impose their fists upon this Christian group?

If we do need fists, then where does the slippery slope end?

If we do need more laws, then thank goodness we megabytes with which store the myriad laws which must be written to cover every possible situation.

At a blog I respect, Cobb and commenters argued that the Christian group in Dearborn were akin to the Christian church which protests at military funerals, and therefore the Christian group in Dearborn could have predicted that they would spark violent reaction against them. Cobb and commenters even argued that rougher elements of the Dearborn crowd (read: young and uneducated and unpolished) could not have been expected to restrain themselves in the face of such obnoxious imposition by the Christians who sought out an Islamic festival at which to loudly protest. http://cobb.typepad.com/cobb/2012/06/stoned-in-dearborn.html

I believe Cobb, and his commenters, were quite wrong. Still, they did impress upon me that the issue is a bit more complicated than I had originally imagined.

If the festival advertised itself as an Islamic event with no political overtones then a Christian group coming in to protest is about as appropriate as the Westboro Church protesting at a military funeral.

I'm not saying that the christian group was doing anything illegal, but they qualify in the same class.

These protests are in the same class. Not illegal, but not appropriate. If this had been a Muslim group advocating for Sharia law in a district -- yes it would be appropriate. This was a bunch of people having a street fair.

Jim P - I'm with Amy on this one - this group and WestBoro are NOT the same. Westboro is about harrassing people at what is normally considered a "private" event (a funeral). My understanding is that is how Westboro makes their money - by taking folks to court who attack them or by taking to court the police/town who do not protect them.

This street fair is (as far as I know) open to the public - granted, we are only seeing one side - and this group didn't seem to do anything to provoke other than have signs that young thugs disagreed with.

I did check out their website and they do seem to go around video recording other events showing the sick minds of some Islamists. So, yea, they may have been there to "provoke" with their signs. But, they are NOT in the same class as Westboro.

And like Amy, I support Westboro's right to free speech along with counter-protestors free speech who block their view from family members of the deceased or, especially, firetrucks who use their sirens to outblast Westboros megaphones.

The bottom line is that it is NOT okay to use violence as a means to counter speech one doesn't like, which is exactly what these young thugs in this video were doing.

This is where the intersection of the first amendment and reality meets.

SCOTUS has ruled numerous times that the police have a responsibility to protect the public but have no responsibility to protect you as an individual.

The police are doing their best to keep the peace.

If the KKK showed up at a Jewish street fair, would they have have a right to say what they want -- yes.

Is it appropriate, no. Is the stoning appropriate, no. But the issue is what is peaceable?

I think everyone in this fucked up. But their is a level rudeness. That is what I'm talking about.

Do you believe they were going to convert anyone to Christianity at a Muslim or Jewish street festival?

Now if a community church/temple/mosque wanted to have a booth at the festival and it was denied -- that is actionable.

This is walking into a church/temple/mosque on their holy day and saying their thinking is wrong, with a megaphone.

I don't believe in religion either -- but I don't defend stupidity.

While not exactly the KKK, there are a couple of groups that do "protest" at the Support Israel Day Parade in NYC every year.

Offensive? yes. Intented to be so? I believe so.

Yes, they are shouted at; but, the police, simply by standing nearby make sure that things do not get out of hand. Nor are the support Israel Day parade goers, in general, a violent bunch.

So, why is it possible for the NYC cops to protest a group of idiots; but the Dearborn police choose not to? Instead they claim that someone's "speech" is the problem. I've never bought that arguement and I am not about to.

I cannot say for sure; but it seems to me, based upon what I have seen at their website, that this group is counter protesting because of the Islamists talk against infidels. If this is the case, then this does add a new dimension to the events.

However, that doesn't change the fact that the violence in this video comes from reaction to the distasteful, not the distasteful itself.

P.S. I remember several years ago I went to a "ban the Klan" rally in DC to counter protest the KKK march along Constitution Ave (the courts would not issue the permit on Penn Ave that they asked for). There were a lot of arrests for violence - all of them anti-Klan. But the best response was by a young black kid who was wearing a white pillow case over his head with 2-eye holes cut out. He was pumping his fist in the air shouting out "I have the right to be an asshole." Funny as all get out, even the cops were laughing - but, I totally agree with the sentiment.

If you are violent because of someone else's speech in public, however inappropriate it might be, then YOU are the problem.

If you do not like someones words in your home, or your business, or on your land, throw them out.

But in the public realm, no level of offense entitles violence.

...UNLESS...we bring back dueling laws, which I wholeheartedly support doing!

Dearbornistan...

How long until women in Dearbornistan have acid thrown in their faces?

"Furthermore, though the Westboro people are awful, I support their freedom of speech just like I support that of all assholes."

The Westboro gang are just camera whores. Their goal is to get media coverage for themselves -- nothing else. They show up at events that have absolutely nothing to do with their pet cause. They seek to disrupt; they shout down speakers, block the movements of event participants, and vandalize whenever they can get away with it.

A few years ago, they came to where I live and tried to do one of their stunts at the funeral of a teenager who had died tragically in a violent school bus crash. They knew that media would be covering the funeral because the crash had received a lot of press coverage. The crash and the girl who died had absolutely nothing to do with any of Westboro's pet causes; they were just there to disrupt the funeral and camera-whore.