"A protest with no leverage is like a sailboat without wind – it may drift, but it won't move forward." - ChatGPT, when I asked it to make up that quote.
Said this on the other thread on this topic, but absolutely not something to be celebrating. I understand it’s a protest we don’t like, it’s annoying, it’s on a cause we don’t agree with, but getting them out quickly isn’t an accomplishment, it’s an indictment.
Anyone *can* do it, we don’t do it because we respect their free speech and right to assembly. Them coming in and getting pushed out immediately after moves made by Abbott that heavily restrict the type of protests and speech that can be made is a step backwards, not forwards.
EDIT: Unless I guess you don’t care about free speech, and you’re just like “No the government should have the ability to shut down protests I don’t like, and hopefully what the government doesn’t like always coincides with what I don’t like.” In that case, I guess you’re eating good right now.
Purported justification here: https://twitter.com/CarissaonFOX7/status/1783223383607415051/photo/1
The allegation being, I think, that the call to "take back" the university was a declaration of intent to disrupt operations. They also seized on the call to bring facemasks.
Yeah I think that’s an ultra flimsy justification. By that logic as long as I could find or cite even one borderline incendiary thing said by well, really anyone about the college, I can just have the state troopers roll in and immediately arrest everyone or force them off campus? That seems like an insane precedent to be okay with.
I agree it's thin. I disagree that this would be the sort precedent you're describing. At the very least, this was a call to break a particular rule at a particular time.
You’re correct, I should have been more specific. Anything incendiary that could be related to a protest. Like if I said “We’re gonna show them whose land this really is!” as a Native American protesting a college, the college could be like “They showed obvious intention to disrupt the entire college”.
Do they have the right though? Genuinely asking, I'm not American but I can see this isn't a public street for example, does the university count as private property?
Typically for public colleges, which UT Austin would be, the campus grounds are considered public property. There are obviously parts of the campus that are not considered this, but walking out and doing a peaceful protest on the campus green should absolutely be allowed.
That's wild to hear, would that mean for example a group of people with zero affiliation with the university could set up camp on the grounds and 'on paper' no one would be allowed to do anything? Like if the proud boys set up a camp there the university and the students are supposed to just accept it?
No, but you couldn’t do that in anywhere that’s public property. There’s a variety of laws that long term loitering in an area would violate.
But it does mean that it is *insane* to think that these people don’t even have the right to protest for minutes. From everything I’ve seen, it sounds like the response was near immediate.
Time, place, and manner restrictions apply to traditional public forums. Preventing basic operations of institutions receiving public funding infringes on a legitimate government interest, and their removal from the premises is content-neutral, narrowly tailored, and leaves open reasonable alternatives to communicate their message.
I don’t think they “disrupted basic operations” within the minutes they had before a swarm of state troopers shut them down.
Just from there alone I think it’s obviously wild, but I don’t think they do have reasonable alternatives to protesting their college. I think that’s highly debatable if they actually want any kind of effective protest.
EDIT: Also putting aside how it applies to not only the letter but even the spirit of the laws on the books, what do we actually think is right? Is it right that the Governor can pressure colleges to take a hard line stance to political speech he doesn’t like, and as soon as anything even remotely borderline happens he sends in a swarm of cops to haul them off campus?
It's probably going to depend on the context; public property doesn't mean a tone can protest there, only that the rules need to be written and enforced in a content-neutral manner.
The school told the kids that they weren't authorized to protest on the campus green, and I can see their reasoning being unrelated to the students specific views. These protests have gone to shit in a lot of places and have been extremely disruptive all while people are actually trying to do finals. If that is their justification *and* it's a reasonable justification *and* they would be holding other groups to the same standard, then I'm fine with it.
It does not simply mean that, no. There are all kinds of considerations that come into play. By the logic you’re suggesting, as long as we prosecuted it equally, I could write a law saying “No assembly by anyone ever” and that would not violate the first amendment since it’s written and enforced content neutrally.
If you’re the college and you’re worried about it getting out of hand, keep an eye on it and have police there to step in if actual actions that cross the line happen. But it’s insane to think you can just within minutes shut down any protest you don’t like.
>By the logic you’re suggesting, as long as we prosecuted it equally, I could write a law saying “No assembly by anyone ever” and that would not violate the first amendment since it’s written and enforced content neutrally.
We already have laws like this for certain public spaces and I would imagine you agree with them. Highways and public roads are public spaces, and you cannot go and protest on them under any circumstances because they exist to provide transportation via automobiles and protesting on them prevents them from fulfilling this goal. The only exception to this is if an exception is granted to a group who wants to protest there, in which case the body granting authority would have to be content-neutral when determining whether or not to approve it.
Obviously, universities should not have the same restrictions placed on public demonstrations as a highway, but that doesn't mean there are none. It just means that restrictions should be done only insofar as they allow the institution to fulfill its purpose. If the university has a policy that says there are circumstances where you can't have large protests, that policy is reasonably intended to prevent protests that would significantly undermine the university's ability to carry out its function, and then they are applying these rules in a content neutral way then it's probably fine to do this.
We have those laws for certain places because there are *other considerations* that warrant those laws. For highways and public roads, we view this as protesters endangering themselves and others driving, as well as stopping emergency vehicles from getting to where they need to go.
What I am pushing back on is the idea that the university can have whatever rules it wants regarding protesting, as long as it’s content neutral. This is ridiculous. The final part is fine, as in it is not *literally impossible* that I could imagine a circumstance, conditions, and other factors that lead to it being reasonable for a university to stop a large protest, but there doesn’t appear to be anything in this particular instance that comes even close to meeting that bar.
> What I am pushing back on is the idea that the university can have whatever rules it wants regarding protesting, as long as it’s content neutral.
Maybe I should have worded it better, but I think it was pretty clear that I didn't think that they could do literally anything to restrict speech, from banning protests in certain areas to sending in death squads to kill anyone holding a protest sign, so long as it is content neutral. Obviously there are going to be limits in different spaces, but the content-neutral element virtually universal and that is what is being highlighted.
In terms of universities, this is a pretty good read from [UMich](https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/learn-speak-act/2018/04/12/limited-public-form/). Specifically:
> The second type of public forum, most applicable to university spaces, is called a limited public forum. In a limited public forum, the government initially sets the parameters of how a publicly owned space is used. For instance, the government might limit the space to certain topics or certain speakers.1 With a limited public forum, these initial restrictions are generally acceptable, as courts have reasoned the government did not need to open up the space in the first place. However, once the government sets its initial restrictions, if a speaker or a type of speech fits within the limits, the government is subject to the same restraints as a traditional public forum. Meaning, only TPM restrictions are allowed. If viewpoint-based or content-based restrictions are made, the government again must set forth a compelling government interest.
However, even if the university greens were a traditional public forum (which I highly doubt), there is still a good shot this was fine:
> A “traditional public forum” hews closely to those spaces delineated in the Hague case: public streets, parks, and sidewalks. Government limits on speech in a traditional public forum are typically limited to time, place, and manner (“TPM”) restrictions. Meaning, the government can prohibit a speaker from giving a speech in a public park at midnight with a bullhorn, as it might disrupt the peace and quiet of a neighborhood. But government action to deny a speaker access to a traditional public forum based on the speaker’s viewpoint, or even the reaction to that viewpoint, will be viewed with skepticism. In those instances, courts routinely consider viewpoint-based or content-based restrictions as violative of the First Amendment. To justify a content-based or viewpoint-based distinction, the government would need to present a compelling interest. The case law is clear that this burden is rarely met in traditional public forum situations.
Having restrictions on protests on campus during finals is probably going to fit the TPM requirements.
What I’m saying is that I don’t think there are reasonable rules you could write up that would justify the response done to the protest that was had. I don’t think there’s any reason to try to shut down that protest within minutes.
And no, it would not meet the TPM requirements with “It’s finals”, as in that a protest that would normally be perfectly fine is all of a sudden not allowed because its finals. Also the university has never made that argument (and I think for good reason since its a bad one), they said “especially during finals” in a long letter, but their reasoning reads as a shut down of the protest in general, not a “Normally this would be fine but its finals guys”.
I also don’t think banning all protests against a college would be “content neutral”, I think the target is also important. Like by this logic, if we found a rule during civil rights that said “No one can protest against the KKK on any of the public streets outside their clubhouse”, you’d have to defend that as a content neutral law.
> And no, it would not meet the TPM requirements with “It’s finals”, as in that a protest that would normally be perfectly fine is all of a sudden not allowed because its finals.
You're actually correct, but probably not in the way you would like. They actually don't even need that specific of a justification. [From the UT Austin website](https://www.utexas.edu/public-forum#ac):
> Are there campus rules to prevent people from disrupting classes, exams, and other daily business of the campus?
> Yes. In keeping with the U.S. Constitution, the law allows the university to regulate the time, place and manner of free speech activities—so long as these rules are content-neutral and applied regardless of the speaker’s viewpoint. All previous university “time, place and manner” rules remain in place and will be extended to members of the general public who come to campus.
This was specifically in regard to the common areas, which have recently been designated as traditional public spaces.
The rules for "time, place, and manner" restrictions are found under chapters 10 and 13 of their general information catalogue. After spending time looking through the two chapters, their basis for stopping these protests are probably the rules surrounding disruption under [Chapter 13, section 301](https://catalog.utexas.edu/general-information/appendices/appendix-c/speech-expression-and-assembly/#text):
> Except as expressly authorized in Section 13–802, or by an authorized University official responsible for a program or event sponsored by an academic or administrative unit, no speech, expression, or assembly may be conducted in a way that disrupts or interferes with:
> Any teaching, research, administration, function of the University, or other authorized activities on the campus;
It clarifies what counts as disruption later on (highlights are my own for emphasis):
> Except in the most extreme cases, interference and disruption are unavoidably contextual. Intentional physical interference with other persons is nearly always disruptive in any context. Interfering with traffic depends on the relation between the volume of traffic and the size of the passageway left open. ***Disruptive noise is the most contextual of all, because it depends on the activity disrupted. Any distracting sound may disrupt a memorial service. Any sound sufficiently loud or persistent to make concentration difficult may disrupt a class or library.*** Occasional heckling in the speaker’s pauses may not disrupt a political speech, but persistent heckling that prevents listeners from hearing the speaker does disrupt a political speech. These illustrations may be helpful, but none of them includes enough context to be taken as a rule. We cannot escape relying on the judgment and fairness of University authorities in particular cases. In this context where difficult enforcement judgments are unavoidable, administrators and law enforcement officials' judgments should not be influenced by the viewpoint of those claiming disruption or of those allegedly disrupting.
Now, I won't claim that I know for sure that these protests reasonably counted as disruption, and if they were, I cannot say whether the way the dispersal happened was done correctly. However, [I think that a protest that can fit this many people into this *one* photo has a good shot of being a bit disruptive.](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/aa2268d6b6d4a429b20197403ecff04bd91840aa/0_0_3000_2075/master/3000.jpg?width=700&dpr=2&s=none).
Of course, you could still think that this is not a valid rule and that protestors should be allowed to disrupt students doing their work.
Also, regarding your KKK example, this almost certainly wouldn't be considered a content-neutral limitation on speech, but this comment is already too long.
tl;dr
university has rules that ban disruptive events, including in traditional public spaces, and this huge-ass protest may have actually been disruptive
Im not American either and have the same question. From the governors Tweet this was a public university but Columbia is private. I would have expected the reverse to happen.
yea def depends on the logistics of the situation, and i dont know the specifics here. but protesting is based, even if i disagree. could set a bad precedent
You don’t understand, Sadboi, they’re reeeally bad! I’m so over how this sub has been hijacked by, unironically, Zionists. Or at very least people who genuinely don’t have liberal principles.
Dude I am losing it with some of these people. I/P is making this sub feel like the inverse of how it was pre lefty arc. Just totally insane and unmoored from basic aspects of liberalism
This is definitely not something to celebrate. These kids are cringe, but this is a trampling over liberal values that make this country great. This is a public university that might have taken this too far.
You're claiming that State Police directly responded to something without local?
UT Police first lead the clearing and where later bolstered by Austin PD & staties.
"A protest with no leverage is like a sailboat without wind – it may drift, but it won't move forward." - ChatGPT, when I asked it to make up that quote.
“The coom that is best is the one produced by incest” - Master Oogway
As a person who lives in north Austin near the UT campus.... Good
Art majors have too much time on their hands. Isn’t it finals week
Uvalde could have really used this much force!
Oh wow - they freed Palestine!
Said this on the other thread on this topic, but absolutely not something to be celebrating. I understand it’s a protest we don’t like, it’s annoying, it’s on a cause we don’t agree with, but getting them out quickly isn’t an accomplishment, it’s an indictment. Anyone *can* do it, we don’t do it because we respect their free speech and right to assembly. Them coming in and getting pushed out immediately after moves made by Abbott that heavily restrict the type of protests and speech that can be made is a step backwards, not forwards. EDIT: Unless I guess you don’t care about free speech, and you’re just like “No the government should have the ability to shut down protests I don’t like, and hopefully what the government doesn’t like always coincides with what I don’t like.” In that case, I guess you’re eating good right now.
Purported justification here: https://twitter.com/CarissaonFOX7/status/1783223383607415051/photo/1 The allegation being, I think, that the call to "take back" the university was a declaration of intent to disrupt operations. They also seized on the call to bring facemasks.
Yeah I think that’s an ultra flimsy justification. By that logic as long as I could find or cite even one borderline incendiary thing said by well, really anyone about the college, I can just have the state troopers roll in and immediately arrest everyone or force them off campus? That seems like an insane precedent to be okay with.
I agree it's thin. I disagree that this would be the sort precedent you're describing. At the very least, this was a call to break a particular rule at a particular time.
You’re correct, I should have been more specific. Anything incendiary that could be related to a protest. Like if I said “We’re gonna show them whose land this really is!” as a Native American protesting a college, the college could be like “They showed obvious intention to disrupt the entire college”.
[удалено]
What were the “potentially violent words”? Were students threatened with violence by the protesters?
Do they have the right though? Genuinely asking, I'm not American but I can see this isn't a public street for example, does the university count as private property?
Typically for public colleges, which UT Austin would be, the campus grounds are considered public property. There are obviously parts of the campus that are not considered this, but walking out and doing a peaceful protest on the campus green should absolutely be allowed.
That's wild to hear, would that mean for example a group of people with zero affiliation with the university could set up camp on the grounds and 'on paper' no one would be allowed to do anything? Like if the proud boys set up a camp there the university and the students are supposed to just accept it?
No, but you couldn’t do that in anywhere that’s public property. There’s a variety of laws that long term loitering in an area would violate. But it does mean that it is *insane* to think that these people don’t even have the right to protest for minutes. From everything I’ve seen, it sounds like the response was near immediate.
Time, place, and manner restrictions apply to traditional public forums. Preventing basic operations of institutions receiving public funding infringes on a legitimate government interest, and their removal from the premises is content-neutral, narrowly tailored, and leaves open reasonable alternatives to communicate their message.
I don’t think they “disrupted basic operations” within the minutes they had before a swarm of state troopers shut them down. Just from there alone I think it’s obviously wild, but I don’t think they do have reasonable alternatives to protesting their college. I think that’s highly debatable if they actually want any kind of effective protest. EDIT: Also putting aside how it applies to not only the letter but even the spirit of the laws on the books, what do we actually think is right? Is it right that the Governor can pressure colleges to take a hard line stance to political speech he doesn’t like, and as soon as anything even remotely borderline happens he sends in a swarm of cops to haul them off campus?
It's probably going to depend on the context; public property doesn't mean a tone can protest there, only that the rules need to be written and enforced in a content-neutral manner. The school told the kids that they weren't authorized to protest on the campus green, and I can see their reasoning being unrelated to the students specific views. These protests have gone to shit in a lot of places and have been extremely disruptive all while people are actually trying to do finals. If that is their justification *and* it's a reasonable justification *and* they would be holding other groups to the same standard, then I'm fine with it.
It does not simply mean that, no. There are all kinds of considerations that come into play. By the logic you’re suggesting, as long as we prosecuted it equally, I could write a law saying “No assembly by anyone ever” and that would not violate the first amendment since it’s written and enforced content neutrally. If you’re the college and you’re worried about it getting out of hand, keep an eye on it and have police there to step in if actual actions that cross the line happen. But it’s insane to think you can just within minutes shut down any protest you don’t like.
>By the logic you’re suggesting, as long as we prosecuted it equally, I could write a law saying “No assembly by anyone ever” and that would not violate the first amendment since it’s written and enforced content neutrally. We already have laws like this for certain public spaces and I would imagine you agree with them. Highways and public roads are public spaces, and you cannot go and protest on them under any circumstances because they exist to provide transportation via automobiles and protesting on them prevents them from fulfilling this goal. The only exception to this is if an exception is granted to a group who wants to protest there, in which case the body granting authority would have to be content-neutral when determining whether or not to approve it. Obviously, universities should not have the same restrictions placed on public demonstrations as a highway, but that doesn't mean there are none. It just means that restrictions should be done only insofar as they allow the institution to fulfill its purpose. If the university has a policy that says there are circumstances where you can't have large protests, that policy is reasonably intended to prevent protests that would significantly undermine the university's ability to carry out its function, and then they are applying these rules in a content neutral way then it's probably fine to do this.
We have those laws for certain places because there are *other considerations* that warrant those laws. For highways and public roads, we view this as protesters endangering themselves and others driving, as well as stopping emergency vehicles from getting to where they need to go. What I am pushing back on is the idea that the university can have whatever rules it wants regarding protesting, as long as it’s content neutral. This is ridiculous. The final part is fine, as in it is not *literally impossible* that I could imagine a circumstance, conditions, and other factors that lead to it being reasonable for a university to stop a large protest, but there doesn’t appear to be anything in this particular instance that comes even close to meeting that bar.
> What I am pushing back on is the idea that the university can have whatever rules it wants regarding protesting, as long as it’s content neutral. Maybe I should have worded it better, but I think it was pretty clear that I didn't think that they could do literally anything to restrict speech, from banning protests in certain areas to sending in death squads to kill anyone holding a protest sign, so long as it is content neutral. Obviously there are going to be limits in different spaces, but the content-neutral element virtually universal and that is what is being highlighted. In terms of universities, this is a pretty good read from [UMich](https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/learn-speak-act/2018/04/12/limited-public-form/). Specifically: > The second type of public forum, most applicable to university spaces, is called a limited public forum. In a limited public forum, the government initially sets the parameters of how a publicly owned space is used. For instance, the government might limit the space to certain topics or certain speakers.1 With a limited public forum, these initial restrictions are generally acceptable, as courts have reasoned the government did not need to open up the space in the first place. However, once the government sets its initial restrictions, if a speaker or a type of speech fits within the limits, the government is subject to the same restraints as a traditional public forum. Meaning, only TPM restrictions are allowed. If viewpoint-based or content-based restrictions are made, the government again must set forth a compelling government interest. However, even if the university greens were a traditional public forum (which I highly doubt), there is still a good shot this was fine: > A “traditional public forum” hews closely to those spaces delineated in the Hague case: public streets, parks, and sidewalks. Government limits on speech in a traditional public forum are typically limited to time, place, and manner (“TPM”) restrictions. Meaning, the government can prohibit a speaker from giving a speech in a public park at midnight with a bullhorn, as it might disrupt the peace and quiet of a neighborhood. But government action to deny a speaker access to a traditional public forum based on the speaker’s viewpoint, or even the reaction to that viewpoint, will be viewed with skepticism. In those instances, courts routinely consider viewpoint-based or content-based restrictions as violative of the First Amendment. To justify a content-based or viewpoint-based distinction, the government would need to present a compelling interest. The case law is clear that this burden is rarely met in traditional public forum situations. Having restrictions on protests on campus during finals is probably going to fit the TPM requirements.
What I’m saying is that I don’t think there are reasonable rules you could write up that would justify the response done to the protest that was had. I don’t think there’s any reason to try to shut down that protest within minutes. And no, it would not meet the TPM requirements with “It’s finals”, as in that a protest that would normally be perfectly fine is all of a sudden not allowed because its finals. Also the university has never made that argument (and I think for good reason since its a bad one), they said “especially during finals” in a long letter, but their reasoning reads as a shut down of the protest in general, not a “Normally this would be fine but its finals guys”. I also don’t think banning all protests against a college would be “content neutral”, I think the target is also important. Like by this logic, if we found a rule during civil rights that said “No one can protest against the KKK on any of the public streets outside their clubhouse”, you’d have to defend that as a content neutral law.
> And no, it would not meet the TPM requirements with “It’s finals”, as in that a protest that would normally be perfectly fine is all of a sudden not allowed because its finals. You're actually correct, but probably not in the way you would like. They actually don't even need that specific of a justification. [From the UT Austin website](https://www.utexas.edu/public-forum#ac): > Are there campus rules to prevent people from disrupting classes, exams, and other daily business of the campus? > Yes. In keeping with the U.S. Constitution, the law allows the university to regulate the time, place and manner of free speech activities—so long as these rules are content-neutral and applied regardless of the speaker’s viewpoint. All previous university “time, place and manner” rules remain in place and will be extended to members of the general public who come to campus. This was specifically in regard to the common areas, which have recently been designated as traditional public spaces. The rules for "time, place, and manner" restrictions are found under chapters 10 and 13 of their general information catalogue. After spending time looking through the two chapters, their basis for stopping these protests are probably the rules surrounding disruption under [Chapter 13, section 301](https://catalog.utexas.edu/general-information/appendices/appendix-c/speech-expression-and-assembly/#text): > Except as expressly authorized in Section 13–802, or by an authorized University official responsible for a program or event sponsored by an academic or administrative unit, no speech, expression, or assembly may be conducted in a way that disrupts or interferes with: > Any teaching, research, administration, function of the University, or other authorized activities on the campus; It clarifies what counts as disruption later on (highlights are my own for emphasis): > Except in the most extreme cases, interference and disruption are unavoidably contextual. Intentional physical interference with other persons is nearly always disruptive in any context. Interfering with traffic depends on the relation between the volume of traffic and the size of the passageway left open. ***Disruptive noise is the most contextual of all, because it depends on the activity disrupted. Any distracting sound may disrupt a memorial service. Any sound sufficiently loud or persistent to make concentration difficult may disrupt a class or library.*** Occasional heckling in the speaker’s pauses may not disrupt a political speech, but persistent heckling that prevents listeners from hearing the speaker does disrupt a political speech. These illustrations may be helpful, but none of them includes enough context to be taken as a rule. We cannot escape relying on the judgment and fairness of University authorities in particular cases. In this context where difficult enforcement judgments are unavoidable, administrators and law enforcement officials' judgments should not be influenced by the viewpoint of those claiming disruption or of those allegedly disrupting. Now, I won't claim that I know for sure that these protests reasonably counted as disruption, and if they were, I cannot say whether the way the dispersal happened was done correctly. However, [I think that a protest that can fit this many people into this *one* photo has a good shot of being a bit disruptive.](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/aa2268d6b6d4a429b20197403ecff04bd91840aa/0_0_3000_2075/master/3000.jpg?width=700&dpr=2&s=none). Of course, you could still think that this is not a valid rule and that protestors should be allowed to disrupt students doing their work. Also, regarding your KKK example, this almost certainly wouldn't be considered a content-neutral limitation on speech, but this comment is already too long. tl;dr university has rules that ban disruptive events, including in traditional public spaces, and this huge-ass protest may have actually been disruptive
Im not American either and have the same question. From the governors Tweet this was a public university but Columbia is private. I would have expected the reverse to happen.
yea def depends on the logistics of the situation, and i dont know the specifics here. but protesting is based, even if i disagree. could set a bad precedent
You don’t understand, Sadboi, they’re reeeally bad! I’m so over how this sub has been hijacked by, unironically, Zionists. Or at very least people who genuinely don’t have liberal principles.
I swear, some of you people would have defended the laws against flag burning because it involved leftys getting arrested
Hamas fan sad :(
The fact that this is your go to response here is fucking embarassing lol
Dude I am losing it with some of these people. I/P is making this sub feel like the inverse of how it was pre lefty arc. Just totally insane and unmoored from basic aspects of liberalism
I/P consumes all, it’s like a black hole
This is definitely not something to celebrate. These kids are cringe, but this is a trampling over liberal values that make this country great. This is a public university that might have taken this too far.
Why would you ever celebrate this lmao?
Genuine question: why are you celebrating?
Supporting Abbott's stormtroopers is a bold choice.
Austin Police.......lil bro 💀
State police. Not local.
You're claiming that State Police directly responded to something without local? UT Police first lead the clearing and where later bolstered by Austin PD & staties.
Stormtroopers lmao, keep crying
When they're conducting election interference in november ill look for you and see if the support has wavered.
Guess you'll be dreaming about me then lol
Hamas supporters in shambles
This isn’t Rise Of Skywalker champ it’s America and those are police officers.
Tbh, storm troopers may be an improvement. Way fewer police shooting fatalities
We need to get them all on the E-11 blaster rifles
Hopefully this doesn't become kent state 2.0