• 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

noah way said:
True, but at least there is some minimum qualification. And raising a child is arguably a far greater responsibility than driving a car.
Click to expand...

Indeed it is.

Thing is, though, people learn to pass the minimum qualifications while remaining devoid of what they mean or how they apply to the real world beyond passing a test to get the license.

Same thing would happen if aspiring parents had to acquire a license or permit before bringing new babies into the world.
 
RiverOfIce said:
From the top of my head? March 28, 2010. Hutaree milita, adrian, michgan.

Septerber 11 2005, Laura Berg was arrested for sedition. The exact words that led her to be arrested:
Click to expand...

So was this woman physically arrested and charged with sedition? "You are under arrest for sedition..." Cuffs go on, she was hauled away, hired a lawyer kind of arrest for sedition? Or was she dismissed from her position at the VA.

Apparently, she said this, in part: "
 
Bob Maxey said:
So was this woman physically arrested and charged with sedition? "You are under arrest for sedition..." Cuffs go on, she was hauled away, hired a lawyer kind of arrest for sedition? Or was she dismissed from her position at the VA.

Apparently, she said this, in part: "
Click to expand...
 
A.Nonymous said:
I had never noticed that Bob. Good catch. She was investigated by the VA. All the news sources seem to agree on that and the VA later apologized. I don't see anywhere either where she was actually arrested.
Click to expand...

Being arrested for sedition seems like a crime we would all know about because it is a serious charge unlike most serious charges.

By the way, if you joke around and talk about killing the President of the United States, you are likely going to wish you did not do it. Add that to the list of things one can be arrested for saying, even in jest.
 
quest7 said:
SAN FRANCISCO – Transit officials said Friday that they blocked cellphone reception in San Francisco train stations for three hours to disrupt planned demonstrations over a police shooting.

Cellphones blocked in SF to hinder transit protest - Yahoo! News
Click to expand...

This is a case of very sloppy, sensationalist, inaccurate and misleading journalism. Mobile phone reception has NOT been jammed.

quest7 said:
What about other reasons to have our phone service on?

The FCC is reminding the public that such devices create "serious safety risks" by blocking access to public safety services.
Click to expand...

There are NO 'devices'. Mobile phone reception has been turned off on the underground sections of the BART. A completely different thing. They're not blocking access to public safety systems.

If there is a emergency, no doubt the BART already has an existing emergency communications system, as should all subways and rapid transits. These are usually in the form of clearly marked emergency buttons and intercoms in every carriage and other public areas.

If there is an emergency on the subway, like a fire on a train, where is the quickest and most knowledgable help going to come from? The subway's emergency communications systems. The person responding should have knowledge of exactly where the train in trouble is, and can direct help accordingly. Someone dials 911 on a mobile phone, and goes through to some call centre somewhere, they wont know exactly where the emergency is. Help will come much quicker by using the emergency communications systems, specifically designed for this purpose.

BTW mobile phones don't work on the underground sections of the London Underground either and never have. Only some subways and rapid transits actually have special extended underground mobile phone coverage, which are there for the passenger's convenience, nothing more.

I actually had experience of an emergency on a subway last year, the Hong Kong MTR. Someone collapsed on a train, another member of the public got on the train's emergency phone, and was able to summon medical help directly to where the train was. Probably because the person answering the emergency phone knew the exact location of the train, presumably they where in the MTR's control room. If they'd used their own mobile phone,... 'Someone has collapsed, possible heart attack, we're on the MTR somewhere.'
 
BART backs off tactic of cutting cellphone service to thwart protests

Officials at Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) decided Monday that cutting cellphone service to thwart another planned protest would cause more trouble than the protests themselves. Instead, four stations were temporarily closed, creating a chaotic rush-hour commute.
...
The decision by BART to briefly cut cellphone service at four stations last Thursday drew widespread criticism by free speech advocates, a promised lawsuit by the ACLU, and a hack of a BART website by the online activist collective Anonymous, which posted personal information of thousands of BART website users on a separate website this weekend in retaliation.

After meeting with BART officials Monday, the ACLU said it won't file a lawsuit over last week's service disruption. The transit agency took that step out of concern that the planned protest would become violent, as did an earlier protest, on July 11, held to condemn the shooting of a homeless man by BART police. The civil liberties group said, however, it is disappointed that BART left the door open to future cell service disruptions. The Federal Communications Commission has opened an investigation into whether BART broke federal law by turning off four agency-owned cellphone transponders last Thursday.
 
noah way said:
... Officials at Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) decided Monday that cutting cellphone service to thwart another planned protest would cause more trouble than the protests themselves. Instead, four stations were temporarily closed, creating a chaotic rush-hour commute.
...
Click to expand...

Yep those protesters MAY have inconvenienced the public, but BART WILL.

LOL
 
OutofDate1980 said:
You want to review this thread and rethink your position.

http://androidforums.com/politics-current-affairs/364302-woman-arrested-filming-police.html
Click to expand...

She was arrested for not obeying commands from the police. That is a chargeable offense. Now, it's a BS reason in this case, but it's still a chargeable offense.

OutofDate1980 said:
The arrest record may have been expunged.
Click to expand...

I could not find any news stories that mentioned she had been arrested. They all say she was investigated by the VA (which they later apologized for), but none say she was arrested. The actual record may have been expunged, but the public accounts of what happened would not be.
 
OutofDate1980 said:
Yep those protesters MAY have inconvenienced the public, but BART WILL.

LOL
Click to expand...

I saw some pics of the protest. I saw a report of one person blocking people from getting on the train. That person should've been arrested and I would've had no issues with it. I saw nothing else that would indicate to me that the situation was "unsafe".
 
A.Nonymous said:
She was arrested for not obeying commands from the police. That is a chargeable offense. Now, it's a BS reason in this case, but it's still a chargeable offense. ...
Click to expand...

I think you see my point, you can be arrested for anything as long as the police say it's illegal. In this case, mainly due to the publicity and that the defendant recorded the event, the charges were dropped.
 
OutofDate1980 said:
I think you see my point, you can be arrested for anything as long as the police say it's illegal. In this case, mainly due to the publicity and that the defendant recorded the event, the charges were dropped.
Click to expand...

Not obeying police commands IS illegal though. There are laws on the books that say you can't do it. There's no question about whether it's illegal or not to not obey police commands.
 
A.Nonymous said:
... She was investigated by the VA.
Click to expand...

It appears the VA wanted an investigation by the FBI.

"Her superiors at the hospital soon alerted the Federal Bureau of Investigation and impounded her office computer, where she keeps the case files of war-scarred veterans she treats. Then she received an official warning in which a Veterans Affairs investigator intoned that her letter
 
A.Nonymous said:
Not obeying police commands IS illegal though. There are laws on the books that say you can't do it. There's no question about whether it's illegal or not to not obey police commands.
Click to expand...

Police commands must be legal, therefore disobeying an illegal police command is not illegal. Those that served in the armed forces are very cognizant of this fact, for others search on Nuremberg trials.

In this particular incident, the government will most likely be forced to compensate the arrested individual for being unlawfully arrested, i.e., paid by taxpayers.

Unfortunately, the arresting police officer who acted illegally will face no adverse consequences for his action.
 
OutofDate1980 said:
It appears the VA wanted an investigation by the FBI.

"Her superiors at the hospital soon alerted the Federal Bureau of Investigation and impounded her office computer, where she keeps the case files of war-scarred veterans she treats. Then she received an official warning in which a Veterans Affairs investigator intoned that her letter
Click to expand...
 
A.Nonymous said:
... That's not the point. She was arrested for not obeying police commands which IS an offense. People have been charged and convicted for it in the past. It's not like she was randomly arrested for a made up reason.
Click to expand...

That's exactly the point, disobeying illegal police commands is not an offense, that's why governments are being forced to compensate for unlawful arrests.

You want to stop these payouts, start firing the police officers who knowingly give unlawful orders and also arrest and charge them for illegal action, it's called a deterrent.
 
A.Nonymous said:
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.
Click to expand...

Can't see what First Amendement rights has to do with this at all.

The simple fact is mobile phones don't work underground. BART has provided extended coverage in the underground sections is a public convenience and courtesy. They can withdraw that courtesy at any time they like.

Go down a coal mine, mobile phone wont work, can't go screaming to the mine's owner about First Amendment rights here. BART is no different.
 
mikedt said:
Can't see what First Amendement rights has to do with this at all. ...
Click to expand...

Bet ya the carriers paid for equipment and installation. The carriers are paid by the users of said carriers.

BART officials deprived the users the use of that service to speak and be spoken to for the purpose of deprivings the users of speech BART disapprove of, therefore, the intent was deprive said users of their freedom of speech.
 
mikedt said:
Can't see what First Amendement rights has to do with this at all.

The simple fact is mobile phones don't work underground. BART has provided extended coverage in the underground sections is a public convenience and courtesy. They can withdraw that courtesy at any time they like.

Go down a coal mine, mobile phone wont work, can't go screaming to the mine's owner about First Amendment rights here. BART is no different.
Click to expand...

Addressed this several pages ago. They cut off cell service with the intent of disrupting the exercise of the First Amendment.
 
OutofDate1980 said:
That's exactly the point, disobeying illegal police commands is not an offense, that's why governments are being forced to compensate for unlawful arrests.
Click to expand...

unlawful arrest != arrested

how can one get arrested(regular arrested, just plain old arrested) for not commiting a chargable offense? impossible.
 
batgeek said:
unlawful arrest != arrested

how can one get arrested(regular arrested, just plain old arrested) for not commiting a chargable offense? impossible.
Click to expand...

arrest: seize, capture

Happens a lot, being arrested for no chargeable offense.

Just because one is arrested doesn't mean one is guilty of an offense.

A police officer must abide by the law, if a police officer arrest someone outside of the law, then the arrest is unlawful.

The specific case is that an officer gave a unlawful order, i.e. outside his authority to give to an individual filming said officer.

The police have admitted the order was outside the authority of the officer to give and the subsequent arrest for disobeying said order was unlawful, which is why the police, not the courts, have dropped the charges against the individual who was arrested for disobeying the order of the police.

I don't know how to make it clearer, if still not clear suggest you ask your local law enforcement to explain.

Suggest you use the terms lawfully arrest versus unlawful arrest, lawfully is often omitted, but implied. Legal documents do not omit using lawfully.
 
Just because one is arrested doesn't mean one is guilty of an offense.
Click to expand...

never said that. but let's see how well getting arrested without initially being charged, or later being charged goes....oh yeah. illegal detainment. illegal detainment != arrested.

arrested w/o being charged is now called detain(ed). why should i have to contact my local law enforcement when i'm an auxillary police officer?

semantics? likely. i'll ask my DA friend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom