NATO Chicago

[StrangeSox]

You've provided one example where the authority of the cops is at issue.

 

No, I also mentioned the case that really started getting OWS attention when a protester was maced for no reason at all while standing behind a barricade.

 

In Chicago there will be no such discrepancy. These groups had to apply for, and receive, permits with specific times/locations/limitations on how/when/where they can protest.

 

Free Speech!

 

If they go beyond those limitations, the authority of the cops is 100% clear. When the Chicago PD starts beating the s*** out of protesters walking down a planned route, i'll change my position on this.

 

The main issue at UC Davis wasn't lack of authority, that merely compounded the problem. The issue was unjust use of force on non-violent protesters.

[Balta1701]

Absolutely not, that's my point. There's a redress if cops do something WRONG.

And there's a clear redress if protestors do something wrong.

 

The next question is whether or not it winds up applied fairly. Of course, I'd argue that it doesn't. That's how you can have the Police decide to destroy a protest in Oakland and have no one charged.

[StrangeSox]

Well before a lot of the modern laws designed to allow protests but within reason for the safety/order of the rest of the city. restrict free speech rights and cordon off protesters while providing maximal cover for use of force to disperse non-violent crowds.

 

[southsider2k5]

And there's a clear redress if protestors do something wrong.

 

The next question is whether or not it winds up applied fairly. Of course, I'd argue that it doesn't. That's how you can have the Police decide to destroy a protest in Oakland and have no one charged.

 

Versus the anti-war group that shutdown LSD and got paid for it after getting arrested...

[StrangeSox]

And there's a clear redress if protestors do something wrong.

 

The next question is whether or not it winds up applied fairly. Of course, I'd argue that it doesn't. That's how you can have the Police decide to destroy a protest in Oakland and have no one charged.

 

But there were a couple of anonymous reports on Drudge that a couple of protesters were throwing rocks, so any action, even firing gas canisters into the crowd and fracturing a skull, is justified.

[StrangeSox]

Versus the anti-war group that shutdown LSD and got paid for it after getting arrested...

 

The government isn't allowed to break the law and illegally detain people. That's a much more serious offense than blocking traffic temporarily.

 

But lawyers for the plaintiffs contend the city had little choice but to settle after a harshly-worded federal appeals court ruling that Chicago Police made “mass arrests without justification” after changing the rules in the middle of the game.

 

They allowed an anti-war demonstration without a permit to shut down the Drive during the height of the evening rush, then trapped demonstrators at Chicago and Michigan and arrested more than 500 of them — and detained 350 others — without giving them a notice to disperse or an opportunity to leave

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/01/19/set...war-protesters/

Edited May 17, 2012 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

The government isn't allowed to break the law and illegally detain people. That's a much more serious offense than blocking traffic temporarily.

 

 

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/01/19/set...war-protesters/

 

So they allowed it to happen, but sued when they did something about it.

[StrangeSox]

The police allowed them onto LSD and then arrested them without notice to vacate. That is not legal and the federal appeals court strongly agrees. A similar situation occurred in NY on the Brooklyn Bridge early on during OWS but I don't know if there are any lawsuits over that and what the status is.

 

Wrongful arrest and detention are much more serious offenses than trespassing or blocking traffic. It's the use of government force to violate your rights.

[StrangeSox]

Some googling reveals that the 7th Circuit also blocked Illinois' eavesdropping law last week that makes it a 1st class felony to video tape police performing public duties. The DoJ just released a memo this week stating that citizens have constitutional rights to video tape police offices in public. Another victory for freedom and accountability.

[southsider2k5]

The police allowed them onto LSD and then arrested them without notice to vacate. That is not legal and the federal appeals court strongly agrees. A similar situation occurred in NY on the Brooklyn Bridge early on during OWS but I don't know if there are any lawsuits over that and what the status is.

 

Wrongful arrest and detention are much more serious offenses than trespassing or blocking traffic. It's the use of government force to violate your rights.

 

The idea that you need to be warned to quit blocking traffic is just stupid. Like you don't know that is not allowed? Please.

[StrangeSox]

Here is the 7th Circuit ruling in Vodak v Chicago

 

 

[Balta1701]

The idea that you need to be warned to quit blocking traffic is just stupid. Like you don't know that is not allowed? Please.

What do you do if the police direct you in to blocking traffic? That's what SS just alleged, and pretty much exactly what happened on the Brooklyn Bridge (I don't know about the LSD case).

[southsider2k5]

What do you do if the police direct you in to blocking traffic? That's what SS just alleged, and pretty much exactly what happened on the Brooklyn Bridge (I don't know about the LSD case).

 

Police allowed=directed?

[StrangeSox]

The idea that you need to be warned to quit blocking traffic is just stupid. Like you don't know that is not allowed? Please.

 

The idea that police can arrest a large group of protesters without warning is just stupid and, thankfully, wrong. Have you read the 7th Circuit's opinion? It is not very kind to the police for their actions. Or perhaps it is just more "propaganda?"

[southsider2k5]

The idea that police can arrest a large group of protesters without warning is just stupid and, thankfully, wrong. Have you read the 7th Circuit's opinion? It is not very kind to the police for their actions. Or perhaps it is just more "propaganda?"

 

By that interpretation, Jaywalking is legal. So would stopping my car on the Ryan for no reason.

[StrangeSox]

Police allowed=directed?

 

Did not stop and blocked alternative routes before trapping a large crowd and arresting hundreds. How familiar are you with the facts of the case?

 

Would it be appropriate for large-scale arrests of a non-political parade that turned down the wrong street? They would be breaking the same laws as these protesters.

[southsider2k5]

And why do you need a warning if you are doing something illegal before you get arrested?

[Balta1701]

And why do you need a warning if you are doing something illegal before you get arrested?

Because relatively minor offenses like "having a protest go into the wrong area" shouldn't necessarily be met with mass arrests?

[StrangeSox]

By that interpretation, Jaywalking is legal. So would stopping my car on the Ryan for no reason.

 

Jaywalking is not legal by that interpretation. But neither is arresting and detaining a jaywalker without warning.

 

Please read the 7th Circuit ruling to familiarize yourself with what actually happened in this case and why the court ruled the way it did.

[southsider2k5]

Did not stop and blocked alternative routes before trapping a large crowd and arresting hundreds. How familiar are you with the facts of the case?

Would it be appropriate for large-scale arrests of a non-political parade that turned down the wrong street? They would be breaking the same laws as these protesters.

 

 

Keep bending.

 

The intent was to march to LSD and shutdown traffic at rush hour. How familiar are you with the facts of the case?

[StrangeSox]

And why do you need a warning if you are doing something illegal before you get arrested?

 

Because it's the law.

[southsider2k5]

Because relatively minor offenses like "having a protest go into the wrong area" shouldn't necessarily be met with mass arrests?

 

The intent was to gridlock the city, not "go into the wrong area". It was planned ahead of time.

[Balta1701]

Because it's the law.

Only people who don't matter, like protestors, need to follow laws.

[southsider2k5]

Because it's the law.

 

"Hey guy shooting someone! That is illegal. Now I can arrest you."

[StrangeSox]

Keep bending.

 

I'm not bending. You are clearly wrong here and the courts are on my side. I was presenting a hypothetical that casts your contention that there's nothing wrong with arresting and detaining people without warning for minor offenses in a very poor light. It's not necessary, though, because it's still not legal to arrest those protesters in that manner, either.

 

The intent was to march to LSD and shutdown traffic at rush hour. How familiar are you with the facts of the case?

 

Somewhat familiar but not intimately so. The intent, during the course of the march, did become to march to LSD after several other paths were blocked. No one disputes that.