To the editor:
I found Bob Kipp’s letter to the editor on July 2, an answer to my submission on June 25, disappointing.
In the first sentence, second paragraph, he states, “First, regarding the Los Angeles protests…” No need to go any further here, because nowhere in my letter did I refer to the Los Angeles protests. My questions were meant only to open a new avenue of thought for Mr. Kipp. I offered no intentional criticism, or any other views regarding Mr. Kipp’s opinions. I will now, though.
Mr. Kipp stated in his letter; “The question of what to do if the protests are violent is hypothetical because the protesters in LA were nonviolent.” My question to Mr. Kipp is, are you kidding? Do you call looting buildings, setting cars on fire, blocking roads, attacking officers, attempting murder with a Molotov cocktail — all things related to the protests — peaceful demonstrations?
Mr. Kipp also made the statement, “We are a nation of laws.” So, if we are truly a nation of laws, why do some people have a problem with deporting those who break our laws by entering our country illegally?
On probable cause, Mr. Kipp stated “My letter referenced [Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s] imprisoning legal residents and even citizens. Clearly in those cases ICE didn’t have probable cause.” Mr. Kipp, just because it was proven that a person may have been imprisoned wrongfully does not mean there was not probable cause to detain them in the first place. Check the definition of “probable.”
Mr. Kipp also states: “Our First Amendment rights to speech and assembly are fundamental so the government needs airtight reasons to violate them. In the case of LA, they have no reason.”
The fact is, Mr. Kipp, the government could restrict speech or assembly if it was directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action and was likely to produce such action. For you to say, “In the case of LA they have no reason,” all I can say once again is, are you kidding?
Walter Crean
Madawaska
