Westboro Baptist Church Thwarted in Brandon, Mississippi

twinQuins

Unfortunately I haven't been able to find any news outlets reporting this but this is from the link I've seen.

http://thehayride.com/2011/04/westboro-baptist-church-goes-to-mississippi-and-loses/

On Saturday USMC Staff Sgt. Jason Rogers, who was killed in action in Afghanistan April 7, was buried in Brandon, Mississippi.

That, by itself, is a sadly unremarkable – though certainly noteworthy and solemn – occasion for us to mark.

And in fact when Sgt. Rogers’ body returned to Brandon it was greeted by hundreds, or perhaps even thousands, of well-wishers who gathered at the roadside to honor the fallen American hero. The dashboard camera from Mississippi state trooper Elmo Townsend’s cruiser gives an indication of the scene last Thursday.

What is most notable about Sgt. Rogers’ funeral in Brandon, however, is what didn’t happen.

You see, the troglodytes from Westboro Baptist Church had threatened to spew their poison at Sgt. Rogers’ funeral.

But the Westboro mob wasn’t on the scene, and Sgt. Rogers was laid to rest without incident – thank God.

Why weren’t there protestors?

Planning ahead by the locals, as it turns out.
From an Ole Miss sports message board, a tidbit of information…

A couple of days before, one of them (Westboro protestors) ran his mouth at a Brandon gas station and got his arse waxed. Police were called and the beaten man could not give much of a description of who beat him. When they canvassed the station and spoke to the large crowd that had gathered around, no one seemed to remember anything about what had happened.
Rankin County handled this thing perfectly. There were many things that were put into place that most will never know about and at great expense to the county.
Most of the morons never made it out of their hotel parking lot. It seems that certain Rankin county pickup trucks were parked directly behind any car that had Kansas plates in the hotel parking lot and the drivers mysteriously disappeared until after the funeral was over. Police were called but their wrecker service was running behind and it was going to be a few hours before they could tow the trucks so the Kansas plated cars could get out.
A few made it to the funeral but were ushered away to be questioned about a crime they might have possibly been involved in. Turns out, after a few hours of questioning, that they were not involved and they were allowed to go on about their business.

Fred Phelps, the disbarred lawyer and Democrat activist who leads the Westboro congregation, will undoubtedly pursue some form of legal action for the way his people were thwarted in Brandon. Let him try. There isn’t a jury in Mississippi which will see things his way.

This is a template for how to handle the Westboro people. If lawsuits don’t work, other means will. Whatever it takes to keep them from harassing bereaved military families on the day their fallen loved ones are laid to rest.
UPDATE: Some of the feedback we’ve received from this piece came along the lines that it’s inappropriate to refer to Fred Phelps as a “Democrat activist.”

We stand by that characterization. If anything, it’s an understatement.
Fred Phelps ran for major office in Kansas as a Democrat no less than four times. He ran for governor on the Democrat ballot in 1990, 1994 and 1998 and for senator in 1992. Phelps received 11,000 votes, or seven percent, in 1990, he received 5,000 votes, or three percent, in 1994 and he picked up 15,000 votes, or 15 percent, in 1998. And in the senatorial contest in 1992 he garnered 49,000 votes, or 30 percent. Phelps furthermore ran as a Democrat candidate for mayor of Topeka in 1993 and 1997.

Phelps also has been closely associated with Al Gore on several occasions throughout Gore’s career – Phelps’ son Fred, Jr. was a Gore delegate at the 1988 Democrat convention and the Phelpses hosted a Gore fundraiser in Topeka that year. Phelps claims that Westboro members “ran” Gore’s 1988 campaign in Kansas.

Phelps may not fit within the typical definition of “Democrat activist” some of our readers expect – but a six-time Democrat candidate is an activist Democrat. That is quite clear, as unknown to the public as it might be.

Now, I don't for a second condone or agree with what the WBC does - in fact I find it heinous - but I also don't agree with people taking the law into their own hands and certainly don't agree with the police conspiring with locals.

While it's sad that they're allowed picket funerals - and I've said before I believe it's little more than harassment - the Supreme Court case previously decided in their favour.
Freedom of speech is for everyone even if you don't like it or agree with it and this is not the way to go about opposing the WBC. If anything this will only feed into their victim complex.

fedor.2.

delighted

jimcoolding

We don't live in a perfect world op. So it's time to drop your self inflicted moral superiorty and pick a side - the Baptist church side or our side.

twinQuins

I'll reject your false dichotomy and continue to say I'm on the side of freedom of speech - even for speech I don't like.

I don't support either "side" because I believe both are wrong for different reasons.
And I never said I was better than them, I just said I disagreed with what they did.

Da Shins Kelly

Groups like this thrive off of attention and the belief that there is some sort of vendetta against them, and that they are being righteous in the face of adversity. I think free speech is very important, and if we stop some people expressing their opinions, then where does it stop? People may not agree with them (and the majority don't), but they still have a right to say and believe whatever they want. Nobody HAS to agree with them. Free speech is vital, but maybe some people should just be listened to more than others. I think the best thing for a group like this, which thrives off the idea that there is some sort of conspiracy against them, is to just ignore them. I know that's difficult when they are so provocative, but people need to remember that it's such a small group that they're not going to make a significant difference, and the majority can see that they're insane, so people should just ignore them instead of acting the vigilantes.

sensibleken

Its a sad fact of life that some people deserve a beating. Hiding behind 'free speech' doesnt mean you shouldnt expect it if you act like them

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

twinQuins wrote: »

Unfortunately I haven't been able to find any news outlets reporting this but this is from the link I've seen.

http://thehayride.com/2011/04/westboro-baptist-church-goes-to-mississippi-and-loses/

Now, I don't for a second condone or agree with what the WBC does - in fact I find it heinous - but I also don't agree with people taking the law into their own hands and certainly don't agree with the police conspiring with locals.

While it's sad that they're allowed picket funerals - and I've said before I believe it's little more than harassment - the Supreme Court case previously decided in their favour.
Freedom of speech is for everyone even if you don't like it or agree with it and this is not the way to go about opposing the WBC. If anything this will only feed into their victim complex.

Other than the beating, I don't think anything illegal was done. And if the people close ranks, there's not much the police can do.

orourkeda

Why are we even talking about these people.

epgc3fyqirnbsx

Brandon sounds like a smallish community, that's what communities do. Fair play I say

danniemcq

GOD HATES WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH

StupidLikeAFox

Nobody broke the law though? Which is exactly the defence the WBC use

This sounds like a great bit thinking outside the box from the local community, and 99% of people didnt get hurt (apart from that one poor fucker lol)

twinQuins

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Other than the beating, I don't think anything illegal was done. And if the people close ranks, there's not much the police can do.

You don't think it's rather suspicious that the police removal vehicles happened to be unavailable at that time? And that only the WBC members were detained and only until the funeral was over?

I really don't want people to get the idea that I support the WBC but one of my big pet peeves is vigilantism. If what they've posted is true then the police force were complicit in this and, arguably, are guilty of unlawful detention.

sensibleken wrote: »

Its a sad fact of life that some people deserve a beating. Hiding behind 'free speech' doesnt mean you shouldnt expect it if you act like them

That's exactly what it means. What the WBC do is morally wrong but what the Brandon community and police force did was morally and legally wrong.

sensibleken

twinQuins wrote: »

That's exactly what it means. What the WBC do is morally wrong but what the Brandon community and police force did was morally and legally wrong.

No it isnt. theres rights and responsibilities, if you walk right up to someone and racially abuse them then dont expect to walk away unscathed. If you use the right to free speech to insult, defame, abuse and inflame people you have to accept that sometimes you might get a hiding. its the same principle of incitement to hatred/violence

Canis Lupus

twinQuins wrote: »

That's exactly what it means. What the WBC do is morally wrong but what the Brandon community and police force did was morally and legally wrong.

I don't think anyone really gives a **** except you and the WBC. Well done Brandon as far as I'm concerned.

pablomakaveli

I think its a pretty creative way to deal with them.

It's easy to say they should be allowed protest because of the right to free speech, but you have to ask if it was your own loved one who was being buried and you had a bunch of people show up and start calling your loved one a fag, you wouldnt feel the same way then.

pragmatic1

twinQuins wrote: »

Unfortunately I haven't been able to find any news outlets reporting this but this is from the link I've seen.

http://thehayride.com/2011/04/westboro-baptist-church-goes-to-mississippi-and-loses/

Now, I don't for a second condone or agree with what the WBC does - in fact I find it heinous - but I also don't agree with people taking the law into their own hands and certainly don't agree with the police conspiring with locals.

While it's sad that they're allowed picket funerals - and I've said before I believe it's little more than harassment - the Supreme Court case previously decided in their favour.
Freedom of speech is for everyone even if you don't like it or agree with it and this is not the way to go about opposing the WBC. If anything this will only feed into their victim complex.

I do agree with what happened to them. Freedom of speech is a right but it has consequences. If they protested a funeral of one of my family or friends I'd do the time with a smile on my face.

bonerm

Don't like the Westboro group, but Freedom of speech and all that. Best thing you can do to defeat them is just ignore them.

As to prasing this act, I'm sure the Mississippians felt equally justified using violence when they were hanging black people from trees and towing them down dirt roads with their pick-up trucks. Great to see those of that calibre from that particular State have not evolved much from the actions of their ancestors.

sensibleken

bonerm wrote: »

Don't like the Westboro group, but Freedom of speech and all that. Best thing you can do to defeat them is just ignore them.

As to prasing this act, I'm sure the Mississippians felt equally justified using violence when they were hanging black people from trees and towing them down dirt roads with their pick-up trucks. Great to see those of that calibre from that particular State have not evolved much from the actions of their ancestors.

yes because thats the same thing

Dudess

pablomakaveli wrote: »

It's easy to say they should be allowed protest because of the right to free speech, but you have to ask if it was your own loved one who was being buried and you had a bunch of people show up and start calling your loved one a fag, you wouldnt feel the same way then.

Well you don't really - and bias like that shouldn't influence the making and passing of laws. However, I agree it's not simply the church exercising its right to free speech - it's harassment. And **** allowing free speech to the point of bullying. Ok, saying anything negative is gonna make someone feel bullied, but saying is where the line should be drawn - it's free speech which doesn't mean carrying out other actions that will hurt people, e.g. picketing a funeral. If someone wants to hold an anti gay march in town and then get up on a podium and shout hate, well unfortunately they're entitled to do that in a public space (it's good though that people like that show themselves up for what they are). A funeral though is not like a busy thoroughfare.

People who vociferously defend free speech do so because of others' rights - what about the rights of those who are hurt by the likes of the WBC though? It's a two-way street.

bonerm

sensibleken wrote: »

yes because thats the same thing

Thanks for agreeing.

sensibleken

bonerm wrote: »

Thanks for agreeing.

no problem handsome

bonerm

sensibleken wrote: »

no problem handsome

You're too kind.

Biggins

On rare instances like described above, I couldn't care if the religious nuts rights were curtailed.
There is a proper time and a place - even if you disagree with an ideology or others way of life.
Disturbing a grieving family funeral is not one of them - for grandstanding or protesting.
Fcuk them!

Well done to all who stopped these ill-mannered, inconsiderate wackos.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

twinQuins wrote: »

You don't think it's rather suspicious that the police removal vehicles happened to be unavailable at that time? And that only the WBC members were detained and only until the funeral was over?

I really don't want people to get the idea that I support the WBC but one of my big pet peeves is vigilantism. If what they've posted is true then the police force were complicit in this and, arguably, are guilty of unlawful detention.

Can you prove that they weren't unavailable...?

Also, how about infringing on the right to honour their dead and have a peaceful funeral? If you start infringing on the rights of others, you will soon find others infringing on yours.

No one is stopping them from saying that God Hates Whoever they want to, uit there is a time and a place, and the rigth to freedom of speech does carry certain responsibilities.

twinQuins

Dudess wrote: »

[...]People who vociferously defend free speech do so because of others' rights - what about the rights of those who are hurt by the likes of the WBC though? It's a two-way street.

I've said before in another thread I, personally, consider what the WBC do to be little more than harassment but the Supreme Court has upheld their right to do it.

While people may disagree with what they do, violence is not the way to go about expressing that if only because the WBC will, as they always have, use it to their advantage.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Can you prove that they weren't unavailable...?

Well obviously not but I mean c'mon isn't it just more than a little coincidental that their vehicles should be unavailable and only the WBC members were detained and only for a few hours (until the funeral was over)?

Sykk

Am I the only one who read it as Westbro.. They'd probably have more members with such a name

Biggins

twinQuins wrote: »

I've said before in another thread I, personally, consider what the WBC do to be little more than harassment but the Supreme Court has upheld their right to do it.

While people may disagree with what they do, violence is not the way to go about expressing that if only because the WBC will, as they always have, use it to their advantage.

The WBC will use what ever the hell they want to use. They will twist anything and everything to get their way and twisted point of view across.
So a number of folk who think different to them also had a relatively peacefully assembly and parked their transports strategically to advocate their opposition to the wackos.
I guess that was them too using their American given legal right to protest!
...A swing goes both ways!

sensibleken

twinQuins wrote: »

I've said before in another thread I, personally, consider what the WBC do to be little more than harassment but the Supreme Court has upheld their right to do it.

While people may disagree with what they do, violence is not the way to go about expressing that if only because the WBC will, as they always have, use it to their advantage.

why not? after all its the funeral of a soldier, someone who has been trained to kill in afghanistan looking for some guy in a turban who urges people to destroy america. seems violence in america is well accepted in some situations

Guy:Incognito

twinQuins wrote: »

but I also don't agree with people taking the law into their own hands and certainly don't agree with the police conspiring with locals.
.

I do.

petes

bonerm wrote: »

Best thing you can do to defeat them is just ignore them.

That is very easily said than done especially if they are protesting at a funeral of someone you have loved and lost.

I myself commend this community for a job well done. Time and a place and all that.

NTMK

bonerm wrote: »

Don't like the Westboro group, but Freedom of speech and all that. Best thing you can do to defeat them is just ignore them.

What about the right to bury loved ones in peace FFS it traumatic enough without having those backward Rednecks protesting at a funeral

As to prasing this act, I'm sure the Mississippians felt equally justified using violence when they were hanging black people from trees and towing them down dirt roads with their pick-up trucks. Great to see those of that calibre from that particular State have not evolved much from the actions of their ancestors.

That’s a different story altogether I certainly won’t lose any sleep over a homophobe who protests at funerals getting the **** beat out of him

Im all for freedom of speech but when your aim is to deny the rights of others you don't deserve that right

thebostoncrab

I'll always hold free speech up high, and I'll always defend someones right to say something I disagree with...but just because I think they can speak their mind doesn't mean I'll sit back and take it.

The WBC can say this chap is a fag and will burn in hell all they want, but they have to realise that it will rub people up the wrong way and they will react back at them, sometimes with violence.

I'd have no problem punching every single one of them in the face or worse and doing time for it. They deserve it.

People think freedom of speech means they can just spew anything they want, but with freedom of speech comes responsibilty and a bit of cop on. Just because I'm able to say what evers on my mind doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. For example I wouldn't post a joke about the tsunami here because it's affecting peoples lives and they would be upset, but a joke between myself and a friend who I know will laugh? Grand.

suicide_circus

A simple case of out-trolling the trolls

Agonist

...uplifting story about justice and community...

twinQuins wrote: »

... Blah blah freedom of speech blah

The US protects the right to freedom of speech and suffers the madcap antics of all kinds of crazies, think teaching creationism as science for example.

We have the Incitement to Hatred act and this is one of the many reasons I'm glad I live here not there.

No right to freedom of speech here on Boards and I think it makes it a much better site.

rochey84

I think its very easy for people who don't have a direct conflict with the WBC to defend their right to Freedom of Speech but if you have direct conflict with them and everything they say is venom aimed at you and people you love, when they de-mean you're love for another consenting adult as sick and depraved, when they claim that people who believe they are doing the right thing and fighting to protect THEIR right to freedom of speech are wrong, then it isn't so easy.

So on that note I say hats off to Brandon and well done, keep up the good work and force the bigots out of your town, if that means showing them that they are sick horrible people than so be it.

p.s. yes I'm gay and no it isn't a choice and even though I don't agree with what the WBC does I also don't agree with the people who go out with the view to counter their protests, you don't fight bile with bile I say live and let live if the WBC want to think all these horrible things about me without knowing me than thats fine but don't go out on the streets shouting and chanting about it, and I won't go out shouting and chanting about how they're all sick twisted individuals.

/end rant

WindSock

The people were right to band together and stop the **** stirrers. I don't think freedom of speech can be used as an excuse or a right to hide behind

when you are deliberately just using it to piss grieving people off. More communities should act like this one.

They recently picketed a Kevin Smith Movie , so Kevin Smith himself came out with his sign "Thor hates Straights"

twinQuins

rochey84 wrote: »

yes I'm gay

As am I.

Don't get me wrong I've no sympathy for the WBC or what happened to them but this is not some wonderful story about people coming together in love and happiness and defending their own.

Protest the protesters, don't stoop to their level.

mikemac

No better state then Mississippi for handing out beatings and conspiring with local police.

The locals have a long history of it.

sensibleken

twinQuins wrote: »

As am I.

Don't get me wrong I've no sympathy for the WBC or what happened to them but this is not some wonderful story about people coming together in love and happiness and defending their own.

Protest the protesters, don't stoop to their level.

thats exactly what it is

Scuid Mhór

Anybody who thinks this story is 'morally challenging' really needs a wake up call. There's a difference between being insane and using your right to free speech.

rochey84

twinQuins wrote: »

As am I.

Don't get me wrong I've no sympathy for the WBC or what happened to them but this is not some wonderful story about people coming together in love and happiness and defending their own.

Protest the protesters, don't stoop to their level.

Except for the guy who got beaten up this sounds like it was a well planned and well executed protest, they protested the WBC's presence at a funeral and did something non-violent and fully legal to do so, I agree that it is very convieniant that the police tow trucks were being used elsewhere and that the members of the WBC that made it to the funeral suddenly needed to be questioned with relation to a crime but if they had any information that might help isn't it pertinant that they provide that information, surely apprhending criminals is more important even to those wackos than protesting the funeral of a man who died fighting for what he believed in.

All sarcasim and joking aside I think it was an amazing show of respect that the town and police showed to the dead solider regardless of what you think he didn't deserve for his funeral to be disrupted by the WBC and I think that the town did the right thing and again I say that I tip my hat to them

Dangerous Man

Look, as a fag enabler myself, I don't have much time for the West Bap. But by the same token, we really shouldn't give these cretins the oxygen of publicity.

Just ignore them and go about your fag enabling. That's what I'm going to do.

whiteboy

Can't wait to see the protests held when Fred Phelps is laid to rest

pablomakaveli

It is a shame that one of them was beaten up as it takes the shine of all the clever tricksthey employed against the WBC. Though im finding it hard to have sympathy for the guy who was beaten up.

twinQuins

rochey84 wrote: »

[...]I think that the town did the right thing and again I say that I tip my hat to them

Okay, perhaps I ran my mouth before giving this proper thought.

Of course the assault was wrong but I see that planting their vehicles strategically was a clever way to non-violently oppose them.

Thanks for giving me something to consider.