OutofDate1980
Android Expert
If protesting, you better have a crowd and media.
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Cellphones blocked in SF to hinder transit protest
- Thread starter quest7
- Start date
If protesting, you better have a crowd and media.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
Why would they protest at a police station when the incident they're concerned about involves a BART officer shooting a man? Protesting at a BART station makes perfect sense to me in this case. If the local bus authority raised prices and you wanted to protest would it make more sense to protest at City Hall or at the bus station?
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
Whether the reason to protest is legit or not is irrelevant.
These protesters were told to stop and desist BEFORE they even started. That's the problem. The authorities did not want them protesting and took steps to keep them from exercising their First Amendment right before they even showed up at the station.
Huh, no they where not. You are trying to divide the issue. We are talking about the blocking of cellphones because of the possibility of an illegal protest.
But even if they where told to stop and desist, before they started, the officer have a right to prevent an illegal activity.
For example, a police officer has the right to stop a crime before it is committed. If a cop sees a group of people pouring gas on a car, the officer has the right to arrest the group of people, BEFORE they start the fire.
If the officer sees a group of people, asking like a mob, he has the right to stop the mob, BEFORE they commit a criminal offense.
If a police officer sees a drunk person walking down the street, they have the right to arrest that drunk person, BEFORE that person could create a public problem.
The protestors where told that any protests in the bart system would create a unsafe environment for the protestors, patrons, and police officers. At that point, any protesting at the terminals, where it happen or not is illegal. Cutting the phone lines in perpetration of that illegal activity is morally questionable, but legally right.
Once again, the police officers protect public safety, once the possibility of a protest was acknowledged by the police, the activity deemed unsafe, any possible protest IS illegal and they have the right to limit that illegal ability.
This is not about first amendment rights. The protestors have millions of avenues to voice their rights and grievance. Once again the constitution only states that the government shall not regulate the content of the speech. But, the the supreme court has repetitively stated that the time, manner, and place of the speech, is completely regulated.
In Brown v. Louisiana, Edwards v. South Carolina, Adderley v. Florida, and Cox v. Louisiana, all ruled that any picketing and physical protesting, "is afforded less protection than pure speech due to the physical externalities it creates." It even on public streets and public gathering places.
AKA, do the possibility of creating a safety and public access issues, these types of expression are limited to TPM restrictions. If you do not agree with the law, that is fine, but you have to follow it, until it can be altered.
OutofDate1980
Android Expert
If the police state something is illegal, then it is illegal ? The latitude given to police to define illegal activity is too broad ?
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
But that's my point. You can't go around stomping on free speech just on the POSSIBILITY that a crime could be committed. You think someone is going to commit a crime so you detain them? Completely bogus. All they knew is that people were going to protest. That's it.
If officer see someone pouring gas on a car, it follows logically that they're going to burn the car. Any reasonable person would assume that. Same with the drunk people same with the mob. If you know that people are going to protest something it's not logical to assume that a crime is bound to be committed. The one does not follow the other. If the President is going to give a speech, it's a given that there are going to be protesters there. Should the government be able to block them from the site of the speech completely and not allow them to protest because it's POSSIBLE the protest might get out of control and it's POSSIBLE that might result in danger to the President? Hell to the no.
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
And this must be watched. More than one policeman I have met really does not know the law. But you are also responsible for ensuring that what you do is not illegal. Sometimes, the public is flat out wrong about the legalities.
Well that is the elephant in the room. There are dozen of court cases on each side of that. But they have continually ruled that the government can regulate speech, as long as there is some type of venue to allow free speech to accrue.
In my personal opinion, yes, the ability of the police to define what is illegal is way, way, way, way too broad. But we require a nanny state, which runs in and protects us from any perceived problem. Gay marriage, minorities, immigrants, terrorist, and the dozen other "destroyers" of america must be controlled, in the minds of the supporters. The price of that control, is simply limiting the rights of everyone.
Regardless,
At no point can you let a one person physically injure another person, but peaceful protesting can turn violent in a heart beat.
The determination of keeping the peace falls the authorities we place in power. Common sense tells you that people for real change are working continuously and persistently for that change. One protest, if turned violent, can not and will not bring meaningfully long term change. However, one protest created out of peace , can create communications that effect long term change; that commutation has to come at the respect of both parties. The basis of respect is the fundamental agreement of the safety of all parties. There is zero reason that a protest contained with in the small areas of bart transportation system, create a safe environment for both sides.
No safety, no respect. No respect, no meaningful conversation. No meaningful conversation, no long term change. So even if the protest where morally right, it is very unlikely to led to a long term change. Only peaceful protesting that is in accordance of the laws, can create long term change.
But once again, the morality and legality is two different things.
Once again, the police determined that a protest can not happen in that area and be safe.
Once the protest can not happen in a safe manner, any attempt that the protest is illegal. It is not a manner of perceived crime, but the fact that the protest can not be done safely.
Let us look at other safety issues.
The law, in most states, that there is 1 person per seat belt, why safety.
If an officer sees a car that has 5 seat belts loading 10 people into it and driving away. The officer has to pull that car over.
If a police officer walks into a business and sees the place is packed elbow to elbow, he has the right to empty the building for public safety.
The officers expect a few hundred people to protest bart, during the busiest part of the day, exceeded the ability of the police to guarantee the safety of all parties in the area. Creating a public safety issue. There is no difference between having 1000 people in a room that is legally holds 100. If something happen at the bart system, there would be a review why the police allowed the event to take place.
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
If there is a mass protest and they stampede and folks are hurt, people will be asking what happened and how it could have been prevented or better controlled. If they are proactive, people start complaining about constitutional violations.
And there are groups that are there because they want violence. Cops have it hard, I suggest more solid oak nightsticks.
Even though I agree on the fact that public safety is important. I think harder nightsticks, is why we are in this mess to begin with.
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
Or not.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
The police did not make that determination the brass at BART made that determination. That's the problem. If I decide to protest at Wal-mart, can Wal-mart make the determination that my protest will not be "safe" and therefore turn away anyone who comes near their property with a "Wal-mart sucks" sign? No, they can't. They certainly can't make that determination before anyone shows up. Can you honestly tell me that there it is completely unsafe to protest at a BART station? That's completely BS. The protest had not even started.
you are wrong on all of these. they are not being detained or arrested BEFORE they commit an offense. they are being detained and arrested BECAUSE THEY ARE commiting an offense.
ex #1 - vandalism and destruction of private property
ex #2 - illegal demonstration and/or demonstration without a license(depends on where you live)
ex #3 - drunk in public
armchair lawyer...
lol. Really?
Never said that the car was not owned by the person pouring gas on it.
What looks like a mob to you, can be just people coming back from a baseball game. And 3 drunk in public, requires an infraction, ie public disturbance. There is no blood limit with walking, unlike driving.
I hope you are not calling me an armchair lawyer, because that would be an insult and we are not making this personal.
1 - illegal dumping of a flammable substance
2 - you said acting like a mob, not looking like a mob
3 - varies by location. i can get a drunk in public in my town, and in Norfolk, and in Va Beach without a public disturbance. shoot, technically, i can get a drunk in public in my town for standing on my stoop with a beer in my hand. crazy huh? true, but crazy.
you CAN NOT get arrested before doing something. you can only get arrested if you HAVE done something, ie - a chargable offense(suspision of XXXXXX is a chargeable offense also).
2 - you said acting like a mob, not looking like a mob
3 - varies by location. i can get a drunk in public in my town, and in Norfolk, and in Va Beach without a public disturbance. shoot, technically, i can get a drunk in public in my town for standing on my stoop with a beer in my hand. crazy huh? true, but crazy.
you CAN NOT get arrested before doing something. you can only get arrested if you HAVE done something, ie - a chargable offense(suspision of XXXXXX is a chargeable offense also).
Crude
Android Expert
"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. " -Ayn Rand
OutofDate1980
Android Expert
You know law better than members of bar, members of the bar concentrate on procedure and being wannabe politicians.
a person that "knows law better than members of bar" shouldn't make the mistake of saying someone can get arrested for something that isn't a chargable offense.
if one could get arrested for potential, then all of us can get arrested at any time for any reason. we all have the potential to do any illegal activity.
*handcuffs go clink clink*
me: excuse me officer, but what am i being charged with?
officer: we we thought you might go up to that guy and shoot him since you had a pistol on your hip.
me: oh really......? officer, you do know that open carry is legal in Virginia right?
officer: yes.
me: well, what charge am i being arrested for?
officer: you have a gun and have the potential to commit a murder.
me: oh ok. i guess i gotta go with you and all.
yup. uhh huh.....
if one could get arrested for potential, then all of us can get arrested at any time for any reason. we all have the potential to do any illegal activity.
*handcuffs go clink clink*
me: excuse me officer, but what am i being charged with?
officer: we we thought you might go up to that guy and shoot him since you had a pistol on your hip.
me: oh really......? officer, you do know that open carry is legal in Virginia right?
officer: yes.
me: well, what charge am i being arrested for?
officer: you have a gun and have the potential to commit a murder.
me: oh ok. i guess i gotta go with you and all.
yup. uhh huh.....
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
I have a car. I am over 21. I have the potential to buy alcohol, drink it and drive intoxicated. I should be arrested for DUI right now to prevent that crime. Do you know how many people are killed every year by drunk drivers? Think of the children!!
noah way
Android Enthusiast
You need a license to drive a car, but any idiot can have a kid.
Frisco
=Luceat Lux Vestra=
Just because a person is an idiot doesn't mean he or she can't get a driver's license.
noah way
Android Enthusiast
True, but at least there is some minimum qualification. And raising a child is arguably a far greater responsibility than driving a car.
Crude
Android Expert
Isn't that the truth.....