There have been a few court cases similar to this during the Bush reign where a person was arrested for just wearing a t-shirt that had a political slogan that a police officer took issue with.
In the other cases, the D.A. either dropped the charges or the judge threw the case out.
I suspect it will be the same here...

There was NO PROBLEM, according to the guy who was wearing the T-shirt and claims he got harrassed and arrested for no reason.

You're listening to, and believing, only one side of this story.


I'll be the first to admit that I do not know exactly what happened in this particular case. But neither do you.

Bottom line: something smells extremely fishy about this guy's story.

Then show me the OTHER side of the story which shows he was disrupting something.
Because we have one side of the story, which was ACTUALLY there....

And we have your side of the story, based on convenient speculation aimed at furthering your own political ideals, which has NO BASIS on what really happened.

Do you actually have anything to contradict his statements?


The only thing that "smells extremely fishy" is your refusal to listen to the obvious.

Something IRRATIONAL clearly happened that day, and it WAS NOT because of him. He was ARRESTED for wearing a t-shirt.
THAT is what is fishy here.

YOU seem to be of the mind that we can POLICE people's thoughts, and judge them. If somebody wears a shirt to provoke, then we can use that THOUGHT against them.
It's not the MOTIVE in wearing the t-shirt which provides a reason (when there is one) to limit free speech. It's the ACTUAL DISTURBANCE it causes, or could potentially cause, which provides the reason to prevent it.
And even then, in America with FREEDOM OF SPEECH, we make damn sure not to overly restrict.

What was "fishy" was this guy getting arrested for not doing anything.
It's amazing you don't get that.
You don't support him getting arrested, but then you don't see how PRECISELY ABSURD it is that he got arrested for wearing a t-shirt that was ACTUALLY CAUSING NO problem.

Correct.

I would have presented "the other side of the story" if there was one. However, they keep declining interviews from various press sources. They were invited to talk with the man who was arrested directly on Democracy Now but declined. If this man is lying, and if his arrest was so justified and lawful, then they would have nothing to fear getting interviewed and giving their side of the story.

Wow, shows how bigoted you are.

Oh, so you don't support our (liberal) troops?

Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

I'm amazed at how consistently dumb and naive you are.

Mike Ferner is an anti-war activist (which is certainly his right). He is NOT a veteran who "just happened to be hanging around" in the VA Medical Center having a cup of coffee.

He is an ACTIVITST. Do you get that?

And his ACTIVISM ALWAYS HAS ONE PARTICULAR POLITICAL SLANT. Do you get that?

Let me post some links for you - some of the writings by and about this "innocent" man who "just happened" to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
You would do well to read some of them.

Again, Mike Ferner (though he is probably a terrific guy) is NOT just a random guy who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

http://www.counterpunch.org/ferner08092005.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/ferner03212005.html
http://www.altpr.org/modules.php?op=...rder=0&thold=0
http://vcnv.org/seven-arrested-at-wh...ainst-iraq-war
(This is an interesting article, where Ferner LIES in his title, claiming that anti-war demonstrators were "arrested for demonstrating" when they were actually arrested for "demonstrating without a permit". This is no different then the time I got fined, by the County, for doing some work on my house without getting a building permit first.)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ferner5.html
(In this article, the idiot is complaining that he got in trouble for painting graffiti on an Interstate overpass - something that would have happened regardless of what he was painting on the overpass.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Ferner
(The Wikipedia article actually gets it right. Ferner was at the VA Medical Center BECAUSE HE WAS PARTICIPATING IN A PROTEST MARCH. He wasn't just "accidentally there". He was PROTESTING OUTSIDE, AND CAME INSIDE FOR A CUP OF COFFEE.)

Now then... that puts a different spin on it, doesn't it?

The article says he's a Vietnam veteran.

Also, protesting without a permit... We had a debate about that in my con law class a while ago, oddly enough. Huh, small world.

Anyway, protesting without a permit is often used as a excuse to block protests for lame-assed reasons. For example, a peace protest was blocked in New York a few years ago because the protesters might "ruin the grass."

Because we all know that grass is more important than freedom of speech.

Weapons possesion is a little harsh for a swiss army knife, isn't it? Furthermore, how could he be tresspassing at a veterans medical center while it's open, and while he's a veteran?

Oh wow, I thought liberals were the ones that were supposed to always resort to personal insults. Please grow the hell up. Thanks.

And also, in regards to your other material: I fail to see how him being an activist somehow justifies his arrest. They were outside the VA protesting, and he went into the VA for a drink, and he gets arrested for the shirt he's wearing. Its still not justified, nor is it lawful.

My point has been proven.

THERE IS MORE TO THE STORY THAN THIS GUY WANTS US TO BELIEVE.

He was there protesting - at least outside. He came inside.

HE DID NOT "JUST HAPPEN TO BE THERE HAVING A CUP OF COFFEE."

So... what other lies do you suppose he told?


Like I said, my point has been proven. He's NOT telling the whole story.