The Latest: KKK leader: Police rejected request for security

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

The Latest: KKK leader: Police rejected request for security

Updated 4:05 pm, Monday, February 29, 2016

. . .

2 p.m.

A Ku Klux Klan leader who was injured when his small group of demonstrators brawled with counter-protesters in a Southern California park this weekend says he called police beforehand asking for security and was told, "We don't do that."

In an interview Monday with The Associated Press, Will Quigg says he contacted the Anaheim Police Department but that his requests for a police presence were denied.

Three people were stabbed and several others injured in the melee involving several dozen people Saturday.

Police Sgt. Daron Wyatt said he believes Quigg asked for police to act as personal security guards and was told how to contract for officers to do that. He said Quigg didn't want to pay.



Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/The-Latest-KKK-leader-Police-rejected-request-6861379.php

[JustAnotherGen]

1. Why should tax payers

In that community have to pay for that? Are we supposed to feel bad for him?

[branford]

3. If police ignored a known and legitimate security and safety risk

at a public and approved demonstration (the KKK applied for and received a permit) in part because they disapproved of the ideology of the demonstrators, the city could be civilly liable. Do you want the taxpayers to have to write a check to the KKK?

The state certainly doesn't have to provide individual bodyguards, but diligently policing known demonstrations is definitely part of the job, and they cannot refuse to do so because the don't like who is demonstrating.

Keep your perspective in mind if and when left-wing groups who are disliked by many such as BLM or communists are involved in physical altercations that possibly could have been prevented. The same standards apply to everyone, not just groups you approve.

[JustAnotherGen]

8. I'm involved with my local PD

This wasn't crowd control at the Holiday or Memorial Day Parade. <- That's a legit use of tax payer funds for the common good of our borough.

They were asking for special consideration. Left wing groups (as you called them) would never be so arrogant and selfish as to ask for the Police to protect them because they want to assert their first Amendment rights at a Park.

You and me can dress up like these guys and go down to one of our town center parks this Saturday and do exactly what these guys did. We can even publicize it. My local PD will be there on a corner or two to make sure we don't harm any children playing there - but work over time when we could have hired our own private security firm?

I'm sorry - your property taxes didn't go up to $9700 this year like mine did - did they?

Your 1st Amendment rights can be expressed however and whenever but that's just selfish to ask people to pay for something that isn't going to personally benefit them personally and isn't for the common good.

My standards - we do well financially and are sick and tired of trouble makers like this taking our money over some stupidity. What's next? Roving bands of Klansmen seizing people's homes because of their selfish sense of entitlement? Don't answer - that's what I believe (1st Amendment right) and if they try it they will end up on the wrong side of our Second Amendment rights. So they better stay off my lawn.

[branford]

9. These weren't "roving bands of Klansmen," and they didn't trespass on anyone's private property.

They were six (admittedly offensive) people who had a city permit to demonstrate at a particular time and place. They had a concern about their safety and those of the general public and properly advised the police. While peacefully demonstrating, they were violently attacked by about 12 other individuals.

Given the controversial nature of their views, their fears were legitimate, reasonable, and the police should have anticipated some problems. That's their job. If they made a simple mistake by not assigning the necessary manpower, they are simply negligent or incompetent. If their decision not to employ officers to the area or promptly respond to calls of an altercation were in any way motivated by the nature of victims or the content of their speech, they will have exposed the police department, and thus the taxpayers, to significant civil liability.

You complain of troublemakers costing your city money. In this instance, the only "troublemakers" were the criminals who attacked peaceful demonstrators. Without them, the Klansmen would have been largely ignored.

Criticisms of local police have been widespread concerning this incident. If they indeed willingly chose to ignore security concerns because they don't like the KKK, it might (and should) cost the city far more in legal fees and liability than a little overtime.

[Democat]

6. Why should people be allowed to protest against Donald Trump?

Think about it.

[JustAnotherGen]

7. He's a Presidential Candidate

He's fair game.

[branford]

12. Why should taxpayers have to pay to protect

people demonstrating for or against the police, abortion rights, climate change, discrimination, foreign affairs, etc.?

The government doesn't get to decide which peaceful protesters engaged in lawful demonstration "deserve" protection, and neither do you or I.

I assure you this benefits liberals and progressives just as much if not more than conservatives.

[olddots]

2. this is getting very , very strange

the coverage and perspectives are confusing .

[Jake Stern]

4. The temerity of the Klanners

expecting the police would do their jobs and keep them from being unlawfully attacked during their permitted rally by violent counter-protesters.



Like or hate the KKK, in this instance evidence points to the counter-protesters initiating the violence.

[brett_jv]

5. I tend to agree ... however an interesting counter-point would be raised if it could be demonstrated

That these particular KKKlansmen were NOT local residents of the municipality in which they were demonstrating. I don't know either way in this particular case, but in the event they WEREN'T, the question becomes a bit more interesting, don't you think?

[Jake Stern]

10. Apparently they had a permit from the city of Anaheim nt

[branford]

11. No, it doesn't.

Protesters travel and choose particular locations for many reasons.

It's common to request people from outside a local community join or help protests. If only "locals" were entitled to police protection, many left-wing protesters would really be sh@t out of luck if they were attacked, particularly in many conservative parts of the country.

For instance, I live across from the United Nations, and see protests about a variety of issues almost every day. Most of the protesters are often not from NYC or even Manhattan, but they choose the park across the street from the UN because visibility and obvious political statement. Nevertheless, the NYPD are diligently around every day, even when the topic of protest is the police themselves. When certain protests or protesters are more controversial or there are security and safety concerns, police devote more resources. It's often very expensive and inconvenient, particularly in poor weather, but it's part of the job of the police and responsibility of the city. It's not necessarily "fair," but it's the price we pay for civil society.

In this instance, the KKK had a permit to demonstrate at a particular time and place, and did so peacefully. If law enforcement didn't devote the necessary manpower due to honest mistake or incompetence, that's a political and practical problem that needs to be addressed. However, if their decision not to employ safety measures was in any way made due to the content of the demonstrators speech or ideas, the city might face serious legal liability.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

13. Many thumbs up for branford. NT