Noise ordinance and first amendment rights

[Anonymous]

They were AWFUL today..I can't imagine if we lived any closer. So sorry for those folks! I cannot believe these demonstrators don't realize how poorly this reflects on their cause (((

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They were AWFUL today..I can't imagine if we lived any closer. So sorry for those folks! I cannot believe these demonstrators don't realize how poorly this reflects on their cause (((

The mayor and police chief are being called before the house oversight committee about their inaction at the GW encampment. Residents should ask House Oversight and Accountability Committee Chair James Comer to ask her why the mayor isn’t enforcing the law in our neighborhood either

[Anonymous]

https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4641341-dc-police-defend-gw-protest-encampment-decision/amp/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4641341-dc-police-defend-gw-protest-encampment-decision/amp/

That's kind of crazy that the university requested help with trespassers and Bowser said no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4641341-dc-police-defend-gw-protest-encampment-decision/amp/

That's kind of crazy that the university requested help with trespassers and Bowser said no?

Not if you read this forum. It's no surprise the MPD decided not to enforce something and the mayor championed it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4641341-dc-police-defend-gw-protest-encampment-decision/amp/

That's kind of crazy that the university requested help with trespassers and Bowser said no?

Not if you read this forum. It's no surprise the MPD decided not to enforce something and the mayor championed it.

GW has its own police force. If GW truly wanted something done, they could do it themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4641341-dc-police-defend-gw-protest-encampment-decision/amp/

That's kind of crazy that the university requested help with trespassers and Bowser said no?

Not if you read this forum. It's no surprise the MPD decided not to enforce something and the mayor championed it.

GW has its own police force. If GW truly wanted something done, they could do it themselves.

I don’t think GW police is equipped to do that level of operation. Look at all the resources NYPD had to bring in to do it safely and professionally

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4641341-dc-police-defend-gw-protest-encampment-decision/amp/

That's kind of crazy that the university requested help with trespassers and Bowser said no?

Not if you read this forum. It's no surprise the MPD decided not to enforce something and the mayor championed it.

GW has its own police force. If GW truly wanted something done, they could do it themselves.

I don’t think GW police is equipped to do that level of operation. Look at all the resources NYPD had to bring in to do it safely and professionally

So GW allows the protestors to assemble (trespass, as they call it), allows them to remain, allows them to bring in tents, allows them to set up tents, and THEN they decide it’s too much for their private police force so the taxpayers need to bail them out?

Actually, that does sound kind of familiar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4641341-dc-police-defend-gw-protest-encampment-decision/amp/

That's kind of crazy that the university requested help with trespassers and Bowser said no?

Not if you read this forum. It's no surprise the MPD decided not to enforce something and the mayor championed it.

GW has its own police force. If GW truly wanted something done, they could do it themselves.

I don’t think GW police is equipped to do that level of operation. Look at all the resources NYPD had to bring in to do it safely and professionally

So GW allows the protestors to assemble (trespass, as they call it), allows them to remain, allows them to bring in tents, allows them to set up tents, and THEN they decide it’s too much for their private police force so the taxpayers need to bail them out?

Actually, that does sound kind of familiar.

Agreed. Mayor Adams is now coming after Columbia for the costs of a situation they let fester and get out of control. Bowser and congress should come after GW if MPD has to clear out the mess

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4641341-dc-police-defend-gw-protest-encampment-decision/amp/

That's kind of crazy that the university requested help with trespassers and Bowser said no?

Not if you read this forum. It's no surprise the MPD decided not to enforce something and the mayor championed it.

GW has its own police force. If GW truly wanted something done, they could do it themselves.

I don’t think GW police is equipped to do that level of operation. Look at all the resources NYPD had to bring in to do it safely and professionally

So GW allows the protestors to assemble (trespass, as they call it), allows them to remain, allows them to bring in tents, allows them to set up tents, and THEN they decide it’s too much for their private police force so the taxpayers need to bail them out?

Actually, that does sound kind of familiar.

Agreed. Mayor Adams is now coming after Columbia for the costs of a situation they let fester and get out of control. Bowser and congress should come after GW if MPD has to clear out the mess

GW asked to have the encampment removed on day 1, before the mess grew, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4641341-dc-police-defend-gw-protest-encampment-decision/amp/

That's kind of crazy that the university requested help with trespassers and Bowser said no?

Not if you read this forum. It's no surprise the MPD decided not to enforce something and the mayor championed it.

GW has its own police force. If GW truly wanted something done, they could do it themselves.

I don’t think GW police is equipped to do that level of operation. Look at all the resources NYPD had to bring in to do it safely and professionally

So GW allows the protestors to assemble (trespass, as they call it), allows them to remain, allows them to bring in tents, allows them to set up tents, and THEN they decide it’s too much for their private police force so the taxpayers need to bail them out?

Actually, that does sound kind of familiar.

Agreed. Mayor Adams is now coming after Columbia for the costs of a situation they let fester and get out of control. Bowser and congress should come after GW if MPD has to clear out the mess

GW asked to have the encampment removed on day 1, before the mess grew, though.

Why did GW allow the encampment to begin with?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4641341-dc-police-defend-gw-protest-encampment-decision/amp/

That's kind of crazy that the university requested help with trespassers and Bowser said no?

Not if you read this forum. It's no surprise the MPD decided not to enforce something and the mayor championed it.

GW has its own police force. If GW truly wanted something done, they could do it themselves.

I don’t think GW police is equipped to do that level of operation. Look at all the resources NYPD had to bring in to do it safely and professionally

So GW allows the protestors to assemble (trespass, as they call it), allows them to remain, allows them to bring in tents, allows them to set up tents, and THEN they decide it’s too much for their private police force so the taxpayers need to bail them out?

Actually, that does sound kind of familiar.

Agreed. Mayor Adams is now coming after Columbia for the costs of a situation they let fester and get out of control. Bowser and congress should come after GW if MPD has to clear out the mess

GW asked to have the encampment removed on day 1, before the mess grew, though.

Why did GW allow the encampment to begin with?

They didn't.

Now, where GW *should* be faulted is their academic and cultural embrace of "Revolution" and pro-Marxist ideology. In that sense, GW absolutely did tempt this kind of hateful chaos that the encampment makes too difficult to minimize.

[Anonymous]

The irony should not escape anyone that our taxpayer dollars were used to remove an encampment on private property but DC refuses to address the issue of the semi-permanent structures erected on the Van Ness sidewalks. While there are not tents, this is clearly an around-the-clock encampment. The protesters have chairs, umbrellas, tables for food, and more. If there is a storm, it is likely that many of the billboards will end up blocking the street and the flagpoles will become projectiles. This is a public danger and should be removed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The irony should not escape anyone that our taxpayer dollars were used to remove an encampment on private property but DC refuses to address the issue of the semi-permanent structures erected on the Van Ness sidewalks. While there are not tents, this is clearly an around-the-clock encampment. The protesters have chairs, umbrellas, tables for food, and more. If there is a storm, it is likely that many of the billboards will end up blocking the street and the flagpoles will become projectiles. This is a public danger and should be removed.

Indeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The irony should not escape anyone that our taxpayer dollars were used to remove an encampment on private property but DC refuses to address the issue of the semi-permanent structures erected on the Van Ness sidewalks. While there are not tents, this is clearly an around-the-clock encampment. The protesters have chairs, umbrellas, tables for food, and more. If there is a storm, it is likely that many of the billboards will end up blocking the street and the flagpoles will become projectiles. This is a public danger and should be removed.

I'm curious, do you think laws don't apply to private property?