pageok
pageok
pageok
Police Officer Assaulted at Convention Protest:
Video here. Based on the video, it looks like a single officer was arresting a protester when a crowd surrounded him and starting yelling to let the protester go. The protester being arrested went limp to make the officer drag him away, and then another protester ran over and knocked over the officer so the officer would let go of the protester being arrested. At first the officer responded with pepper spray to try to keep the angry mob away. But the crowd kept coming at him, so he let go of the person he was arresting and backed away to his squad car. The crowd then cheered their victory. Lovely.
taney71:
Thugs. I have been watching video of the "protests" or more properly called destruction fests. I think these people should be put in jail for as long as possible. All they are doing is destroying property and trying to push the police into doing something stupid.
9.2.2008 10:07pm
Grand Old Police State:
given how many journalists, innocent bystanders, and nonviolent protesters have been gassed, beat up and arrested in a soviet style sweep, the crowds reaction isn't much of a surprise.
9.2.2008 10:10pm
Nunzio:
After Seattle and some other extreme protests, I think the police are the ones here who deserve our sympathy. Seattle and Minneapolis are not the bastions of police brutality
9.2.2008 10:12pm
Matthew K:
Oh joy, yet another post that leaves us ignorant of the base rates...
9.2.2008 10:12pm
Talmadge East (mail) (www):
Yeah, but maybe they should stop arresting innocent people too and they wouldn't have as many problems. Amy Goodman comes to mind. Such a hell raiser she is.
9.2.2008 10:14pm
OrinKerr:
Oh joy, yet another post that leaves us ignorant of the base rates...

Base rate of what? Are you suggesting that police are normally assaulted in St. Paul, and maybe this is just the usual level of assaults against cops?
9.2.2008 10:15pm
Hoosier:
They have fantasies of reliving Chicago '68, don't they?

The more the better, from the GOP point of view. The thugs most likely recall how the Chicago protests hurt Humphrey and the Democrats. But they've taken the wrong lesson. It is not necessarily the party in the hall down the street that is harmed by film of this sort of voilence in the streets. This sort of anti-democratic thuggery reminds people of the "law and order" issue. (Note Wallace's bizarre popularity in *Boston*.)

Which party do voters associate with "law and order"?
9.2.2008 10:15pm
OrinKerr:
Talmadge East,

Do you disagree with my legal analysis yesterday as to why Goodman did in fact commit a crime permitting her arrest? If so, why?
9.2.2008 10:16pm
taney71:
Talmadge East:

Have you watched the youtube video on the Amy Goodman arrest? She was trying to obstruct justice and clearly was told what NOT to do by the police. She decided not to follow police orders and she was arrested.

Hippies/protestors, a word of advice. Do what the police tell you to do or you will and should get arrested.
9.2.2008 10:20pm
jccamp (mail):
Those innocent bystanders? That the ones with their faces covered, wearing gas masks and helmets? Oh, wait. it must be all those people rushing in and taking photos and videos, knowingly interjecting themselves into a volatile situation.

Soviet style sweep? A little hyperbole perhaps? More like gross exaggeration. Freedom of assembly doesn't include vandalism and assault. And if you're foolish enough to get up close and personal during a police-involved fight with violent anarchists, then you're just asking to be treated as a troublemaker yourself.
9.2.2008 10:22pm
ras (mail):
Actually, Humphrey got a good convention bounce in '68, I believe.

As for the present, these are narcissistic thugs on an ego trip. Tolerating them accomplishes two things, neither beneficial:

1. increases their ego addiction by increasing the dose they need to get their fix; tomorrow, it will take more.

2. increases the stakes in their inter-group pissing match. Today, knocking down a policeman was enough to count coup; tomorrow, it will take more.

Both conclusions mean an increase in violence is inevitable. Me, I blame the junk-food self-esteem movement of the last few decades for this level of acting out, but others may have their own theories as to the root cause.
9.2.2008 10:29pm
taney71:
Can someone explain how these people can afford to travel to these places and then get money to be bailed out of jail? Are they professional protesters with large trust funds or are there organizations behind them?
9.2.2008 10:31pm
Smokey:
[Deleted by OK on civility grounds. C'mon folks, keep it civil.]
9.2.2008 10:36pm
loki13 (mail):
Hoosier,

I hate to say this, but Wallace was popular for another reason in Boston, and it had nothing to do with law &order. It rhymes with 'mace'. Boston was a roiling cauldron of racial tension at the time, boiling over for busing. Think of 'Southie' if you know Boston at all, or the old Dorchester. There was a reason Jim Rice was so surly (other than his natural disposition).
9.2.2008 10:37pm
Tomm:
How does a court determine if an order from a police officer is lawful or unlawful? How much latitude do they have to bar access to public areas?
9.2.2008 10:42pm
Matthew K:
The base rates of police abuses and of protester abuses. In any protest of this size, things are going to get out of hand; it's natural, however unfortunate. Just how chaotic is this protest compared to comparably sized ones? Are the police being unusually aggressive? If so, is this good?
9.2.2008 10:47pm
Hoosier:
loki--Yeah, I know about the busing issue. After I posted, I thought "Crap. Stepped on my own point with my example."

But keep in mind that Wallace made his appeal in the North on the issue of safety in the cities. He certainly wanted to make this "code" for "mace." But I can vouch as a Chicagoan--thus, a native of a city that did NOT have a busing issue--the fear of violence was really a fear of violence. No question, race was the key factor in who lived in the poor areas, and thus the dangerous areas. (This was, and is, more true of Chicago than perhaps any other major city. Although demographers will also cite Cleveland and a couple others for the title of "Most Segregated City in America.")

Dad worked down at IIT back then--35th and State, if you know the area. My parents were good Cook County Irish Democrats, and voted for Humphrey, of course. But Mom was terrified every night back in the summer of '68 that Dad wouldn't make it home. It wasn't a matter of race. My parents just had the impression that Chicago wasn't a safe place to be anymore.
9.2.2008 10:48pm
Hoosier:
"(This was, and is, more true of Chicago than perhaps any other major city. )"

BTW--NPR reported last summer that @ 90% of Chicago Public School kids in grades 9-12 do not have a single white child in their class. I can't vouch for this. But . . . good Lord.
9.2.2008 10:51pm
OrinKerr:
Matthew K,

I don't get it. No one is suggesting police assaults are common: That's why it's newsworthy.

Perhaps we just disagree on the inevitability of "things getting out of hand." Why is that inevitable?
9.2.2008 10:58pm
Gabriel McCall (mail):
From the video, it's impossible to determine what the protestor was being arrested for. The question of whether the angry mob was in the right or not is entirely dependent on whether or not the attempted arrest was just.

It would be nice if we lived in a society where it was safe to operate under a presumption that a police officer attempting to take someone into custody is acting within his rights and the law, but the reality is that this isn't the case. I'm certainly not suggesting that we should operate under a presumption that he *isn't*, but merely pointing out that without more information we can't make a judgement either way.

It's possible that the arrestee was indeed a vandal or other actual criminal, in which case, yes, this video shows a triumph of irrational brute force over law and justice. On the other hand, it's possible that the arrestee just happened to get on the wrong side of a JBT on a power trip, in which case this video shows an ethical populace preventing a kidnapping under color of law. We just can't tell without having seen more of what precipitated the arrest in the first place.
9.2.2008 10:58pm
vinnie (mail):
Watched the video. I am not a fan of overbearing cops. Police claim that they are held to a higher standard and I am all in favor of that. Can we start soon?
That being said I think its was well past time for the water cannon in that place.
9.2.2008 10:59pm
taney71:
For the most part we must remember that the videos on Youtube and other places are produced by the protesters so they are most likely editing out anything that makes them look bad.
9.2.2008 11:04pm
Bruce Hayden (mail) (www):
Interestingly to me, the police in St. Paul tried to portray a much more low key presence than was seen by the Denver police. To no apparent avail.

One reason that I don't see this hurting the Republicans is that most of the protesters are likely leftists, as they were in 1968. Then, it was a fight within the left, and that is why it may have hurt the Hump (actually, a third or so cousin of my mother, but...) But in this case, you have leftist protesters trying to disrupt the other party's convention. That is more akin to bad taste and not playing fair, which is why it is likely to backfire.
9.2.2008 11:10pm
Malthus:
Rage on!

But those of you who haven't suffered brutality at the hands of cops just need to get out more!

The moment they stop hiding behind their immunity, as in the Rodney King case, is the moment I consider giving them a break.
9.2.2008 11:10pm
Hoosier:
"On the other hand, it's possible that the arrestee just happened to get on the wrong side of a JBT on a power trip, in which case this video shows an ethical populace preventing a kidnapping under color of law."

Just thought I'd repost that one, in case anyone missed it.
9.2.2008 11:11pm
OrinKerr:
Gabe,

If you think a police officer is arresting you wrongly, the proper response is to wait for your post-arrest preliminary hearing, get out when the police can't make out probable cause, and then sue the crap out of the police for wrongful arrest.

The improper response is to assault the officer. That just makes you guilty of assault.
9.2.2008 11:23pm
afm_Dude:
"Interestingly to me, the police in St. Paul tried to portray a much more low key presence than was seen by the Denver police. To no apparent avail."

I spent some time yesterday in Saint Paul. I do not know what Denver looked liked, but the police presence was nowhere near low key. I was blown away by the sheer numbers of personnel (at least one hundred National Guard troops were on hand)and the military nature of their behavior.

Also, I did not see any of the vandalism, but what I did see was pretty mild. I'm not sure it required the teargas deployments, which did affect innocent passerby.
9.2.2008 11:30pm
chris znth (mail):
Orin;

wait to sue the cop?

are you kidding? I suppose it makes sense that you believe in law and order, but at what point have we had enough? At what point do we start revolting? When will it be acceptable to fight back? We need to start doing something. The courts are inherently biased.

There is no time left to wait to sue. We need to fight. Now.
9.2.2008 11:30pm
Matthew K:
Orin,

I think it takes a remarkably small number of actual bad apples to sour an interaction between ten thousand angry protesters and a large number of police, mob thinking being what it is. In this case, the presence of the bad apples is a given; political gatherings attract them and this year it's the Republican's turn to get the lion's share. Given that, the mere occurrence strikes me as mundane, though the scale indicated by the previous post is troubling.

This post, and its predecessor, seem to be "hey, look at the bad," and I think we can all agree that what we're seeing is bad. But now what? What do you think of the balance struck between the needs of law enforcement and the safety of the community on one hand and the first amendment on the other? Could these incidents have been better handled without unduly restricting the rights of peaceful protesters? Are peaceful protesters being mistreated?
9.2.2008 11:35pm
Gabriel McCall (mail):
Ore, what makes this "the proper" response? Are there laws on the books which require obviously innocent civilians to cooperate with a blatantly unlawful arrest?

If I saw a criminal attempting to force someone unwillingly and unlawfully into his car, I would consider it not only ethical but somewhat of a duty to interfere with his kidnapping attempt. A police officer performing an unlawful arrest is a criminal under 18 USC 242. The fact that the criminal is wearing a uniform does not relieve me of my right and responsibility to attempt to prevent a crime from being committed in my presence.

(Again I should point out that I'm not asserting that this is what happened here, just that it shouldn't be discounted as a possible explanation. Also, it doesn't appear that the arrestee assaulted the police officer, but rather that third parties did so on his behalf.)
9.2.2008 11:35pm
Tollhouse:
Is there first Amendment protection to wear masks in public?

It would seem that wearing masks show clear intent to commit mischief.

I'm trying to see if there were any notable cases involving the Ku Klux Klan. I thought I recall that some southern states did ban masks in public.
9.2.2008 11:36pm
OrinKerr:
chris znth,

You appear to think the time for revolution is now, and that we have to start assaulting the police because they are oppressing us, and violence is the only answer.

If you really do think this, may I ask if you happen to live in the Washington DC area? I ask because I happen to live there, and I want to make sure I'm not anywhere near you when your "revolution" gets under way.
9.2.2008 11:37pm
Big Bill (mail):
I have a couple requests:

1. Will someone in black pyjamas and bandanna go out to the protests tomorrow carrying an "Obama '08: Death to White People!" sign. And make sure you get your picture taken in th vicinity of the protesters when they jump a cop.

2. Will someone place some rocks inside police cars with broken windows, said rock being wrapped with an "Obama '08: Death to Pigs!" message on a strip of paper?

We might as well get some fun out of this street theater by retargeting the missiles (so to speak).
9.2.2008 11:42pm
OrinKerr:
Gabriel McCall asks:
Ore, what makes this "the proper" response? Are there laws on the books which require obviously innocent civilians to cooperate with a blatantly unlawful arrest?
Why yes, there are. Use of force is not legal against a police officer making an arrest, even if the arrest is completely unlawful. See, e.g., MPC 3.04(2)(a)(i), which I believe reflects the state of the law in every jurisdiction (although I would have to check to be absolutely sure). Of course, I am assuming you care about "the law," and perhaps you don't.
9.2.2008 11:43pm
Hoosier:
Tollhouse: I saw Pawlenty on TV about an hour ago, and he said that there's no law against wearing masks at a protest in Minn. That doesn't mean that the folks in masks are there for good reasons. But they seem to be violating no law simply by being masked.
9.2.2008 11:47pm
Actual (mail):
I'm trying to see if there were any notable cases involving the Ku Klux Klan. I thought I recall that some southern states did ban masks in public.

As stated, not in Minnesocold.

Link.
9.2.2008 11:54pm
Gabriel McCall (mail):
Use of force is not legal against a police officer making an arrest, even if the arrest is completely unlawful. See, e.g., MPC 3.04(2)(a)(i), which I believe reflects the state of the law in every jurisdiction (although I would have to check to be absolutely sure). Of course, I am assuming you care about "the law," and perhaps you don't.

I wasn't aware of that bit of law and was sincerely asking for enlightenment if you had any to share, so I appreciate the cite.

I do care about the law, inasmuch as it is a somewhat convenient tool for predicting the actions of members of the legal system. I wouldn't automatically equate "the lawful response", whiich is a question of fact, with "the proper response", which is a question of ethical philosophy. And in this particular case, I think the two diverge... but it's useful and interesting to see that the opposing view has its proponents.

Do you believe that an unlawful action is always an improper one? If not, would you be interested in describing why you feel that the law is proper in this particular instance?
9.3.2008 12:12am
Simon P:
Orin: To follow up on the Goodman point. I went back and found your analysis of the video; it seems that your analysis is largely correct. But what then? Why can I count on the VC for critical analysis of proposed economic regulation but then highly deferential analysis when it comes to crackdowns on attempted exercises of free-speech?

Why do we have laws that make it illegal to interfere with the duties of police officers? What sorts of evils do such laws contemplate? Personally, I imagine people trying to, say, prevent someone from being arrested, say by holding onto a limb, or people trying to get in the way of the pursuit of a suspect. I am sure there are similar analogues in the context of riot or protest management. Police officers in those contexts need to be able to establish or maintain the peace. I'm not sure what they might need to do in order to do so or how a protester or rioter might get in the way of that ability.

So -- does Goodman's actions fall within the spirit of that law? Do we have such laws so that a journalist might be deterred from responding in an instinctual way to a police officer manhandling her? (Have you ever been physically accosted by an officer, Orin? Are you certain that your response would be to do exactly as told and not to resist, not even a little bit?)

As far as I can ascertain, what Goodman did may land her within the scope of the law, but I do wonder if it ought to have, and what that says about our law. Had the officer simply responded to her question and allowed her to speak with someone who might have some authority over her detained producers, there would have been no cause for her arrest. Would that have been such a horrible result? Instead, there was no response, just repeated orders to return to the sidewalk and then, after physically pushing Goodman toward the sidewalk, a push back and an arrest. Was that necessary? Is that what free speech looks like in this country?

Anyway, way to go for finding and posting a video of an unruly protester unjustifiably attacking a police officer. It's fortunate that we have groups of people actively documenting this sort of thing so as to nail perpetrators and to exonerate the innocent. It's a shame the police decided to crack down on them, too.
9.3.2008 12:20am
OrinKerr:
Gabriel,

The law is proper in this instance for three very good reasons.

First, a person who is being arrested is in a TERRIBLE position to know what the law is, and without that, he is in a TERRIBLE position to know if the arrest is lawful. The protesters and the people who are defending them online mostly have no clue was is illegal and not. And they have no idea what the officer has seen or not seen, and thus whether the officer has probable cause. Thus it's a TERRIBLE idea to let people use violence just because they THINK they are being arrested unlawfully.

Second, use of force against an officer only leads to more force by the officer against the person in self-defense. You end up just escalating the violence, which is really bad. And do you want to escalate violence against a guy carrying a gun?

Third, the legal system is designed to give individuals who are arrested the opportunity to challenge the arrest in court and sue the officer if the officer acted improperly. Other, more peaceful alternatives exist.
9.3.2008 12:26am
OrinKerr:
Simon P,

I think you have some kind of disagreement with me, but I genuinely not sure what it is. I think I have responded to one of your points in the comment above, though.
9.3.2008 12:30am
TCO:
Maybe he should have just shot a couple of the smackheads.
9.3.2008 12:41am
Simon P:
Orin: I suppose that you're thinking that your second point is responsive to my own. Thus: "Goodman was appropriately arrested for pushing back against the officer who was pushing her, because if we allowed such push-backs, then we would get just greater violence, etc." Or something to that effect.

But I think that misses the mark. Why and when do officers have the right to push us around, in the first place? Do officers have that authority so that they may make unimpeded arrests and quiet unruly crowds, or do they have that authority so that they can make uppity journalists stay in their place behind the riot line? You're saying that they have that authority in either case, but only the first strikes me as the real point of the law.

Your argument here and elsewhere on the crackdowns on protest activity is that: Here is what the law permits, and the authorities have not transgressed that line. My response is: even so, why aren't you asking whether the line should be moved? What makes this line the correct one? Goodman shouldn't have crossed the riot line, she shouldn't have pushed back. But why was there a line? Why was she pushed? Why wasn't her initial query answered in any responsive way? Why shouldn't it have been?
9.3.2008 12:42am
xyzzy:
Related Legal News

Attached to a story today, the Minneapolis StarTribune has published the Application For Search Warrant and Supporting Affidavit (dated 29 August 2008) for the premises at 627 Smith Av S, St Paul. That's the former theatre presently known as the RNC Welcoming Committee “Convergence Center”. The warrant issued for those premises was executed Friday, August 29, 2008 at about 9:15pm.
9.3.2008 12:43am
Guest12345:
Was that necessary? Is that what free speech looks like in this country?


No, that's what nonsense looks like in this country. When someone is arrested, a third party -- regardless of their relationship with the arrestee -- doesn't get the option to debate the arrest with the officers on the scene. They get the option of securing legal counsel and going down to the police station/court house and working within the system to get them released at the proper point in the whole process.

Besides it is not like Goodman was on the street doing journalism and was suddenly caught up in the chaos and arrested. She was on the convention center floor when she was somehow notified that some of her producers were arrested. At which point she left the building and went down and initiated the conflict with the police. That it ended in her arrest shouldn't be a surprise with anyone.
9.3.2008 12:48am
TokyoTom (mail):
"What country can preserve its liberties,
if its rulers are not warned from time to time that
this people preserve the spirit of resistance?
Let them take arms."

Orin, presumably you recognize the threats to liberty that our government now poses to us. Was Jefferson wrong? Our rebellion against England was itself illegal, under English law.
9.3.2008 12:54am
Kirk:
chris znth,

I'll see you at the barricades, then? Alas for you, if you do mount such an effort you'll probably encounter real "military" behavior, not the pretend stuff that amf_Dude saw in his dream.
9.3.2008 12:55am
Simon P:
Guest12345: I never suggested that "free speech" included the right to secure the release of arrested individuals. She could ask, she could be denied, she could make angry tones, she could be ignored. She may not have a right to know what the producers were arrested for either, but that doesn't mean she ought to be arrested for asking.
9.3.2008 12:57am
Dave Hardy (mail) (www):
Bigger cans of pepper spray. And if they wear gas masks, shoot for the crotch. A little OC will kill crabs and simultaneously give the jackasses something else to think about.
9.3.2008 1:00am
neurodoc:
Grand Old Police State: ...arrested in a soviet style sweep...
"Soviet" as in Soviet Union? As someone who was in Prague when the Warsaw Pact showed up there uninvited 40 years ago, I can tell you that the means adopted at the Convention have been very "unsoviet."
9.3.2008 1:03am
Obvious (mail):
They came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because Orin explained that it would be illegal to interfere with a police officer in the process of arresting people in the line of duty.

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn't sure whether or not the trade unionists had crossed a line the police indictated they were not permitted to cross.

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I didn't want the violence to escalate. After all the police have weapons.

And then . . . they came for Orin . . . I didn't speak up because Orin knows the law and I was sure he could handle matters himself...
9.3.2008 1:06am
OrinKerr:
TokyoTom,

If the government you're rebelling against is the government of George W. Bush, I have important news for you: You can sit around and drink beer between now and January, because no matter what you do, come January 19th he'll be kicked out of office.
9.3.2008 1:07am
Oren:


If you really do think this, may I ask if you happen to live in the Washington DC area? I ask because I happen to live there, and I want to make sure I'm not anywhere near you when your "revolution" gets under way.

But then you'll miss the laugh riot of the century.

PS. These guys make me feel really stupid for our disagreements in the last thread. It's like I'm stupider for being associated with 'em.
9.3.2008 1:13am
Gabriel McCall (mail):
First, a person who is being arrested is in a TERRIBLE position to know what the law is, and without that, he is in a TERRIBLE position to know if the arrest is lawful. The protesters and the people who are defending them online mostly have no clue was is illegal and not. And they have no idea what the officer has seen or not seen, and thus whether the officer has probable cause. Thus it's a TERRIBLE idea to let people use violence just because they THINK they are being arrested unlawfully.

This argument isn't compelling for me. Perhaps many or most arrestees are unclear on the law, but that does not mean that they all are, nor that those who are informed ought to act as if they are not. If an uninformed party becomes violent under questionable justification, he's assuming the risk of being held liable for that violence. If an informed party becomes violent with complete and obvious justification, that's a different matter altogether.

Second, use of force against an officer only leads to more force by the officer against the person in self-defense. You end up just escalating the violence, which is really bad. And do you want to escalate violence against a guy carrying a gun?

"Don't argue with the mugger, dear, just give him your wallet." Escalation of violence _in ethical self defense_ is fully justified: any violence which results from an attempted criminal action is the fault of the criminal. It's not always practical to exercise the right of self-defense, especially in cases where there's a severe disparity of armament, but impractical and immoral are not the same thing.

Third, the legal system is designed to give individuals who are arrested the opportunity to challenge the arrest in court and sue the officer if the officer acted improperly. Other, more peaceful alternatives exist.

This argument actually does resonate with me. If there is indeed an effective legal recourse, then perhaps the proper action indeed is to go along in order to keep the peace. Have any studies been done on whether this avenue is indeed effective? This one indicates that it is not, at least in the criminal courts, but I'm not able to readily locate any info on civil suits.

(On the other hand, if my neighbor Joe foolishly attempts to mug me, I certainly have a legal recourse through the courts and am likely to prevail since I know where he lives, but that doesn't mean that I should feel obligated to hand him my wallet and then call the police; I ought to be allowed to defend myself in the moment if I think it practical to do so.)

I also found this article from Crime and Delinquency which appears to make the case that the modern attack on the common-law right of self defense ought to be reconsidered, but I'm not prepared to shell out twenty bucks to read it.
9.3.2008 1:14am
afm_Dude:
Kirk,

I was trying to stress that what was going on greatly exceeded normal "police" action. Was it necessary? For the nuts, it was. But the nuts weren't the only ones getting it. There were plenty of people who simply got caught on the wrong side of the line or downwind of the teargas canisters. I even had to help a few people who were obviously not part of the group causing trouble get out because they could not see.

Even along the peaceful march, the riot police had an incredibly large presence. After a point, such tactics are intended in part to intimidate. That is not what our civilian police force is meant to do.
9.3.2008 1:16am
OrinKerr:
Obvious,

Actually, they would have got me when they came for the Jews -- indeed, the Nazis did in fact come for my father, grandmother, and uncles and send them to the Vilna ghetto before sending them to the concentration camps. So there's kind of a family history with that one. But very fortunately, what we're dealing with is pretty different from Nazi occupied Poland. And if you can't see that, well, that's sad.

P.S. Does anyone know where these fringe commenters are coming from? Usually we get pretty smart and normal people, but we seem to be getting an odd lot today.
9.3.2008 1:17am
Guest12345:
...She may not have a right to know what the producers were arrested for either, but that doesn't mean she ought to be arrested for asking.


She wasn't arrested for asking. She was arrested for intruding over the boundaries that the police set up to keep things safe for everybody involved. If she had gone and located a police officer who wasn't the center of a crowd, explained the situation as she understood it and asked how she could continue the process of managing the release of her coworkers or at least gathering information regarding their situation, then she would not have been arrested. She wanted to get arrested and she was. I don't see why anybody should care.
9.3.2008 1:19am
Psalm91 (mail):
It appears that many of the posters simply enjoy the fact of the police beating up on people they don't like or with whom they disagree. Is that a libertarian or authoritarian position?
9.3.2008 1:23am
OrinKerr:
Psalm91,

Really? Which commenters?
9.3.2008 1:37am
GW student:
Orin -

I was in your crim pro class at GW and greatly enjoyed it - however I have been disappointed with your focus the past few days on the protesters and police activity at the RNC which would appear to impugn the behavior of the protesters and elevate the behavior of the police - I dont get what the point of it is, other than a partisan agenda? the seeming "backlash" in the comments seems to reflect my surprise and confusion - are you somehow suggesting the police don't act very inappropriately at times? this would seem at odds with what i learned in your class
9.3.2008 1:46am
Obvious (mail):
Well, as a fringe commentator, Orin, I'm not sure I get the right to reply, but weren't the Nazis simply applying the law? The very phrase "good German", now held as a term of opprobrium, refers to people, citizens who watched properly designated legal operatives of their government apply the law, allowing rights to be violated without feeling it proper to interfere.

Of course, I gain great solace in knowing that our government is not at this time anything like Nazi Germany. And it seems only fringe commentators see any value in analogies. I'm sure, if things change, Orin at some point in the future, able to assure everyone that the police were merely following proper procedure--as if that's the only possible issue of importance--will gain great solace in being known as a good American.
9.3.2008 1:52am
TruthInAdvertising:
I'll second Simon P's point. I don't have any problem with the police stopping and arresting people actually rioting or preparing to riot. Indiscriminately arresting people including journalists, excessive use of pepper spray and tear gas and similar police actions smack of unnecessary and unwanted attempts to stifle lawful activities that should be protected under the First Amendment's guarantees of free speech and freedom of assembly. If people can't gather at a political event to express political views in public places without having to wonder if the police assembled are going to overreact to any perceived transgression than we have a problem on our hands.
9.3.2008 1:56am
Hoosier:
And then they came for the people who make arguments based upon insanely strained historical analogies. And I said: "They're hiding right over there." Because I was not a person who made arguments based upon insanely strained historical analogies.
9.3.2008 1:57am
Hoosier:
QUIZ:

The Nazis were able to come to power in Germany because the Weimar government was unable to enforce the laws of the state. This includes, quite relevantly, the inability to prevent the Brownshirts from raiding meetings of opposing political parties and breaking them up with violent thuggery.

T or F?
9.3.2008 2:04am
Talmadge East (mail) (www):
I looked for you post OrinKerr in earnest to read it, but could not find it. I am intrigued by what you might have to say, if you provide a link. As far as the comment by taney71 goes, she was trying to get the police to let 2 producers go who were not actively committing any criminal act and had a right to film the protests under the First Amendment.
9.3.2008 2:09am
Malthus:
O what is that sound which so thrills the ear
Down in the valley drumming, drumming?
Only the scarlet soldiers, dear,
The soldiers coming.

O what is that light I see flashing so clear
Over the distance brightly, brightly?
Only the sun on their weapons, dear,
As they step lightly.

O what are they doing with all that gear,
What are they doing this morning, this morning?
Only their usual manoeuvres, dear.
Or perhaps a warning.

O why have they left the road down there,
Why are they suddenly wheeling, wheeling?
Perhaps a change in their orders, dear.
Why are you kneeling?

O haven't they stopped for the doctor's care,
Haven't they reined their horses, their horses?
Why, they are none of them wounded, dear.
None of these forces.

O is it the parson they want, with white hair,
Is it the parson, is it, is it?
No, they are passing his gateway, dear,
Without a visit.

O it must be the farmer who lives so near.
It must be the farmer so cunning, so cunning?
They have passed the farmyard already, dear,
And now they are running.

O where are you going? Stay with me here!
Were the vows you swore deceiving, deceiving?
No, I promised to love you, dear,
But I must be leaving.

O it's broken the lock and splintered the door,
O it's the gate where they're turning, turning;
Their boots are heavy on the floor
And their eyes are burning.

-- W. H. Auden
9.3.2008 2:12am
OrinKerr:
GW student,

Thanks for the helpful comment. My point has been to explain the law to the readers of the blogs within my area of expertise, and to point out some of the legally relevant facts that should inform discussion of these events. More generally, I'm trying to blog about the specific legal events I can find factual descriptions of that are receiving press attention. Those events so far are (as far as I know) the police raids, the Amy Goodman arrest, and now the assault on the officer. In each of those three events, it looks to me like the police didn't do anything wrong under the law.

I apologize if this seems to have a "partisan" orientation (although I'm not sure what this has to do with partisan politics -- maybe you mean an ideological focus?). Perhaps there are other instances of police brutality that I am missing? If you have other events that raise possible legal questions in which you think the police did not act legally, I would love to blog about them. I've been reading pro-protester blogs, but the allegations are really vague, and when there's videotape, it seems to support the officers' conduct rather than refute it.

Finally, it's possible that your objection is one of tone: Perhaps my tone doesn't suggest as critical an attitude towards the police that other sites are suggesting, or that commenters would like to see. I think my tone is reflecting incredulity in light of the the know-nothingism of bloggers like Glenn Greenwald (and a number of commenters in past threads) who are misrepresenting both the facts and the law that governs protests and arrests. I find the coverage quite astonishing, really, and so I want to give an informed perspective in response. That's what I'm trying to do, at least.
9.3.2008 2:12am
OrinKerr:
Well, as a fringe commentator, Orin, I'm not sure I get the right to reply, but weren't the Nazis simply applying the law?

Yeesh, no. To see how the Nazis looked at enforcing the law to quell violent political protests, it helps to start here.
9.3.2008 2:17am
GW student:
Orin -

Thanks for the detailed response - and sorry let me clarify, I said "partisan" agenda recklessly - i don't read this blog on a regular basis but have been making the rounds the past few days in the wake of the Palin controversies - came here to get a conservative legal perspective on the matter (can only read national review corner and laugh so much)- primed to find partisan attacks/unease over what appears a politically disastrous RNC/vp pick/etc - ergo attacks on the protesters as "partisan" attacks on democrats - anyway I do not personally know your political agenda and this is a testament to the quality of your teaching
9.3.2008 2:42am
OrinKerr:
Thanks, GW Student.
9.3.2008 2:48am
Mac (mail):

Orin, presumably you recognize the threats to liberty that our government now poses to us. Was Jefferson wrong? Our rebellion against England was itself illegal, under English law.


Tokyo Tom.

Somehow, our Founding Fathers and these anarchist's just don't strike me as having a common thread. Wahington, Jefferson, et al, they ain't.
9.3.2008 2:59am
Kirk:
afm_Dude,
I was trying to stress that what was going on greatly exceeded normal "police" action.
Well, duh! Totally appropriate under the circumstances. My daughter went to college in St. Paul; I have a number of in-laws in the Twin Cities area whom we visit on occasion; so I have some recent experience as to what it's like. A normal day in St. Paul does not include the city being besieged by droves of anarchists, and even larger droves of protesters.

Please reread the paragraph Orin posted and then try to imaging what the city would be like if those same multitudes were present but the violent cohort among them had completely free reign to run, smash, and burn to their hearts' content.
9.3.2008 3:06am
LM (mail):
Orin Kerr,

P.S. Does anyone know where these fringe commenters are coming from?

I was wondering the same thing. I assumed someone linked to the post?

If the cop told the protester he was under arrest, and then fled for his own protection without explicitly releasing him, how long does the protester remain under arrest? How long, if at all, is he legally required to sit there and wait for the cop to come back for him?
9.3.2008 3:07am
PersonFromPorlock:
OrinKerr:

As little sympathy as I have with protesters generally, I'm curious as to how you'd defend the American Revolution (assuming you would) given your apparently absolute defense of government authority. Even the challenge you'd allow to government actions still embraces its authority, as embodied the courts.

Regardless of whether these protesters in this action were justified, there has to be some point where physical resistance to government is less harmful to liberty than compliance: I don't see your approach as allowing that point to be identified.
9.3.2008 8:35am
Hoosier:
Prof. Kerr: The great myth that many Americans have picked--purely by accident, as far as I can tell--is that the Nazis came to power through democratic means. When, as you know, Hitler was never elected chancellor, president, or anything else in a free vote.

In addition to the Beer Hall Putch, I'd add the Enabling Act: A 'law'? I dunno, and will leave that to scholars of jurisprudence. Essentially, it amounted to a statement that the rule of law was suspended in Germany for, one supposes, 1,000 years.
9.3.2008 9:11am
Joshua:
To the extent that a police officer enforces the laws of the state, he/she is an agent of the state. The act of assaulting an on-duty, uniformed police officer, then, is by its very nature an act of war against the state.

Considering that these protestors are anarchists to begin with, somehow I doubt that they would have any quarrel with my assertion - indeed, that's probably exactly what they were going for here. And for all intents and purposes, they won this particular "battle". The question now is, how will the St. Paul police respond? Presumably both the guy they arrested and the ones who forcibly freed him are wanted men (women?) but do the cops intend to hunt them down and arrest them again later? And if so, how would they go about doing it? Given the embarrassment to the police from this incident, not to mention the message that it sends to other would-be mass lawbreakers, I presume they (the police) have to at least try to pursue these people.
9.3.2008 9:35am
emma goldman:
this is a libertarian blog, right? the authority-worshipping tone of the posts and comments here does remind me of something from '68 -- genet's homoerotic appreciation of the cops with their tight uniforms and big clubs.
9.3.2008 10:01am
Joel Rosenberg (mail) (www):
It's interesting how people's perceptions can be in error. After watching another video of the same incident several times, I was certain that it was a deputy who had hauled off the protester. I was, to use the technical term, wrong, as a frame by frame view shows.

Forgetting, for a moment, what the law is, what should the law be? Assuming (and I really don't think that's the case here, but just for the purposes of argument), if a police officer decides to haul somebody off for no reason at all, should the public be required to stand by and let it happen? Should it make any difference if the PD has a known habit (and the SPPD, by the way, doesn't) of recreationally beating suspects and getting away with it?
9.3.2008 10:29am
Hoosier:
emma goldman--I don't think the blog is limted to libertarians. So you might be laboring under a false presumption. Like your presumption about worshipping authority. But perhaps not. What gives you the idea that there was is a coherent "tone" to the posts, as opposed to considerable disagreement among them?
9.3.2008 10:56am
Nick42 (mail):
OrinKerr:

If you think a police officer is arresting you wrongly, the proper response is to wait for your post-arrest preliminary hearing, get out when the police can't make out probable cause, and then sue the crap out of the police for wrongful arrest.

I agree with this, but I have to say, given how difficult it is to bring a law suit against a police officer or government body for misconduct, I can see some reason these types are more motivated to resolve things with violence.

Given the higher presumption of truth given a police officer's word, qualified and sovereign immunity, and the finical resources required it's almost impossible to do anything about police misconduct unless there is clear video proof. Even when there is clear misconduct the police officer (or prosecutor - remember Nifong, he served a single day in jail and paid a $500 fine for his misdeeds) is often only punished internally or fired by his police department instead of facing criminal charges.

To make matters even worse, there have been an increasing number of cases where police officers arrest citizens for videotaping the police officer performing their official duties.

I don't condone attacking police officers, but even if they don't have a nuanced understanding of the law, the people involved most likely know that the deck is stacked towards the police if they attack to make a legal case out of their dispute. I think that surely helps motive these people towards violence.
9.3.2008 11:24am
Granny:
Tell us Orin about that arrest of whole theater in Sunday?
9.3.2008 12:05pm
Whole star:

[Deleted by OK on civility grounds. C'mon folks, keep it civil.]


Thou shall not criticise thy government, Smoky.

Here we go again. Orin gets diarrhea when police state is criticised.

[OK Comments: Ironically, Smokey's comment was that Amy Goodman was a pathetic loser who deserved to be arrested, and that the police were right. I deleted it because it was uncivil towards Amy Goodman. It's fascinating that you filled in a different story that suited your imagination, though.]
9.3.2008 12:12pm
Billy Mays (mail):
Taney71: my thoughts since 1971--where DO these people get the time to spend there; the money to not work all day; the money to be bailed out?

Malthus: yes and no: some police are awful; they tend, however, to be well mannered when video is everywhere as here; but the video--as in the Rodney King case--usually only starts to roll when the cops act and not before: so the provocation, the rock throwing, the vandalism--its rarely captured. King in particular led police on a high speed chase, refused to stay down, threw off a swarm of cops trying to make him stay down and resisted even after being tased. King was a menace to everyone on the freeway that night and ought to have been jailed for a good long time. Here, the people jumping on cops are out of line (although I too sometimes feel some cops deserve it); but we can't have a civilized society if people get to beat up the cops. Agree?
9.3.2008 12:23pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
In general, some protestors arrange to get arrested. One of the tactics is to have, off camera, one or two women shrieking. This adds to the tension among the police, increasing the chance they'll do something they shouldn't, and makes the whole thing look terrible on television. For most people unfamiliar with violence, seeing a limp body being dragged to a paddy wagon is upsetting. Nothing really bad need happen to the protestor, nothing worse than he'd likely get playing touch, or at least flag, football. But ramp up the drama and there it is.
I've seen it since my first riot on campus in '68. Seen attempts to provoke police.
Unfortunately, it has caused me to always think the protestors are at fault for trying to set up an event for political purposes, first, and require to be proven wrong.
So the protestors have had an effect. On me.
9.3.2008 12:29pm
Nothing but the truth:

Orin:

If you think a police officer is arresting you wrongly, the proper response is to wait for your post-arrest preliminary hearing, get out when the police can't make out probable cause, and then sue the crap out of the police for wrongful arrest.



Which crap exactly to sue?

How about usung badge to hide illegal activity (electrical work without a permit on house declared unsafe)?
9.3.2008 12:31pm
Hoosier:
Billy Mays

For what it's worth, I think you've hit on the main point.

I don't think the police are always right. (I had experienced of police overstepping bounds when I was young and foolish.)

BUT--You can't run a society in which crowds get to veto arrests as long as they are larger in number than the police officers. Or better armed. This won't work any better than having a society where people cn storm prisons and release inmates, as long as the really, really think it's for the best.

The (probably) fake Owell quote about rough men willing to do violence on behalf of the rest of us is no less true for Orwell not having said it. I don't want to live in a self-help system of justice. And I'm willing to give the police a large benefit of the doubt if that's what it takes. Because, from what I can tell, that is what it takes.
9.3.2008 12:56pm
whit:

From the video, it's impossible to determine what the protestor was being arrested for. The question of whether the angry mob was in the right or not is entirely dependent on whether or not the attempted arrest was just.



um, no. blindingly ignorant. in most states, an arrestee does NOT have the right to use force to resist an arrest, EVEN if unlawful. example: if i arrest you (in WA state) for open container, even though I'm stupid and don't realize the open container is an unarrestable civil infraction, and you use physical force of any sort... it's resisting arrest. it's also colossally stupid.

similarly, when you see another person arrested, there is almost no chance you are going to know all the facts and circumstances leading to the PC for his arrest. NO citizen has the right to interfere with another person's arrest. That, incidentally, is apparently what Goodman was arrested for.

The venue for redress for "bad' arrests is the court system. NOT the streets. and no police officer should face resistance, assault, or obstruction because some street lawyer, let alone some out of control crowd made an ad hoc determination the arrest was unlawful. that is NOT rule of law. that IS anarchy.
9.3.2008 1:12pm
Minno:

Orin:

If you think a police officer is arresting you wrongly, the proper response is to wait for your post-arrest preliminary hearing, get out when the police can't make out probable cause,


...so sayeth Orin Kerr.

And now, Miss Rosa Parks, please obey the lawful order and move to the back of the bus.
9.3.2008 1:45pm
SATA_Interface:
The reason why the crazies are showing up here - I checked via google searches for "rnc convention arrest" and two categories show up - liberal blogs denouncing the police and conservative blogs supporting the police.

I didn't see the VC pop up right away, so it's not a primary result for the search. However, all the supporting blogs that might mention the VC as a friend or fellow blogger are showing up right in the primary results.

This means that someone going over to a conservative blogger like Texas Hold Em to troll might also click on Tex's "friends" to do the same.

While the other political threads have attracted some colorful characters, this thread is pulling the bomb-throwers in unfortunately!

It's too bad because the post itself doesn't warrant any of that vitriol - the Texas Hold Em blog for instance uses "Moonbats attack" as a headline, which might score a little higher on the "Anarchist Crazy Comment" index...

At any rate, this violence will only draw more free media coverage to the convention... Hope any posters in St. Paul are staying safe off the streets.
9.3.2008 1:52pm
Gas mask:

How much latitude do they have to bar access to public areas?

Depends which bribe givers political donors police is ordered to hide
9.3.2008 1:53pm
whit:

And now, Miss Rosa Parks, please obey the lawful order and move to the back of the bus



good analogy. rosa parks engaged in peaceful civil disobedience. so have i. that is entirely different from obstructing somebody else's arrest &assaulting a police officer. one act is noble and selfless. the other is thuggish and despicable
9.3.2008 2:00pm
Hoosier:
And now, Miss Rosa Parks, please obey the lawful order and move to the back of the bus.

Her entire point was to get arrested, in order to challenge segregated public transportation. She didn't resist arrest. Nor did the NAACP send out a group of Brownshirts to pistol-whip the authorities.
9.3.2008 2:19pm
r78:
I haven't noticed if Orin has been posting about the illegal arrests (of journalists and others) that are taking place around the convention site.

Did I miss that?
9.3.2008 2:20pm
OrinKerr:
r78, I blogged about Amy Goodman. I would welcome your links to other arrests, should you choose to provide them.
9.3.2008 2:29pm
whit:
which illegal arrests of journalists? in the arrest of goodman, a decent prima facie case (is that redundant) has already been presented.

please present evidence that an "illegal arrest" of a journalist was made.

and what do you mean exactly? an arrest w/o probable cause? an arrest that was statutorily not justified? etc.
9.3.2008 2:30pm
Blah:

I haven't noticed if Orin has been posting about the illegal arrests (of journalists and others) that are taking place around the convention site.

Did I miss that?


You did not. Orin likes ordnung, and will not post on criminal assaults by police against journalists uncovering bribes potical contributions.

Remember: thou shalt not criticise thy Führer.

Makes you wonder how high Orin would have rised his hand, had he been born just on time.



ABC Reporter Arrested in Denver Taking Pictures of Senators, Big Donors click on video there.
9.3.2008 3:00pm
Hoosier:
Makes you wonder how high Orin would have rised his hand, had he been born just on time.

Caption for that picture:

"You must be THIS TALL to join the Nazi Party"

(I mean, as long as we're going insane and all.)
9.3.2008 3:04pm
Hoosier:
"ordnung" needs to be capitalized, btw. It's a noun.
9.3.2008 3:05pm
xyzzy:
I would welcome your links to other arrests...


I'm not r78, but here's a link to one of story in the MinnPost by David Brauer: AP photographer's last pre-arrest shot is a stunner.

Excerpting from the middle of this account of the arrest of AP Photographer Matt Rourke:

Rourke also had the sense officers — whom records indicate were from Maplewood — regretted the bust almost immediately.

"I heard an officer say, 'What are we supposed to do with him?' And the arresting officer say, 'What do we charge him with?' It seemed they knew I was press but no one knew what to do. I was getting passed around but no one was willing to do anything."

The arrest report indicates Rourke was charged with "Riot — gross misdemeanor."

This story ends by stating that the Ramsey County attorney's office doesn't intend to prosecute Rourke.
9.3.2008 3:15pm
Homeland Insecurity:
Former CCIPSer Orin asks:
P.S. Does anyone know where these fringe commenters are coming from? Usually we get pretty smart and normal people, but we seem to be getting an odd lot today.
Cyberwar? One could argue that since the conventions started, it sure seems like the Volokh Conspiracy is under an especially demented and inefficient form of cyber-attack...
9.3.2008 3:19pm
roystgnr (mail):
If unjustified arrests are swiftly met with legal penalties for the officers at fault and full recompense for the wronged parties, then it seems absolutely foolish to try to physically resist such an arrest. Even the prospect of being unjustly locked up for days wouldn't have much of a chilling effect on free speech if prospective protestors knew they'd soon come out of such a situation better than they went into it.

But... exactly how often does that system work correctly? Have we even finished cleaning up the mess of Pier 57 yet, or will the 2008 victims just have to get in line behind the 2004 queue?
9.3.2008 3:38pm
zippypinhead:
At the risk of leaving whatever plane of [un]reality that this thread has been hijacked to: Now that the affidavit in support of the RWC search warrants has been made public, I daresay that the PC looks pretty solid. Not only is probable cause for the searches more than adequately established on the four corners of the affidavit, subsequent events have corroborated the accuracy of the averments. These clowns came to rumble, and the advance police acts to thwart them look awfully mild in hindsight.

And best of all, we now have an explanation why the magistrate authorized "hollowed out puppets" to be seized...
9.3.2008 3:44pm
whit:
there is a difference between an unjustified arrest, and an arrest that merits legal penalties for the officers. that's the first point.

second of all, as i have repeatedly pointed out... just because a prosecutor declines to prosecute does NOT mean the officer did something wrong, let alone illegal.

in the case of the WTO - where we made tons of arrests, we were not sitting there after the fact, documenting reports, taking witness statements, etc. when you are in the middle of a riot situation, it's kind of understood that the goal of the police is to protect life and property and restore order. but, like it or not, the normal procedures (careful documentation, identification procedures, witness interviews, etc.) are often NOT going to be practicable. iow, it's more important to stay on the street and protect than it is to start writing reports. we had guys on our arrest team who made a dozen arrests over an 18 hr period, and where they had a short break or two for dinner and that was it. the rest of the time we were on our feet marching, or meeting resistance. those arrests are going to run together in your memory and simply put - probably never be close to prosecutable.

it's just a totally different environment.
9.3.2008 3:45pm
percheron:
We need a ruling: If pictures count, Blah invoked Goodwin at 2:00.
9.3.2008 3:49pm
zippypinhead:
Actually, I think Obvious invoked Goodwin's Law at 12:06 am. Or at least that's how I'm interpreting the Judge's ruling/reply at 12:17 am.

And thereafter, the thread fell into the mud, as always happens when Goodwin makes an appearance.
9.3.2008 4:28pm
Kirk:
Minno,
Miss Rosa Parks, please obey the lawful order and move to the back of the bus.
I must have missed school the day they got to the "and then she assaulted the police officers who came to arrest her" part of the story.

xyzzy,
It seemed they knew I was press
Yet Another Reporter Who Thinks He Should Have More Rights Than The Commoners. Yawn...
9.3.2008 4:36pm
Kirk:
whit,

Just to clarify about the WTO: you aren't saying none of the folks you arrested had committed any acts worthy of being prosecuted, are you? But merely that no one had time to keep up with documenting any of the adequately to make an actual case in court, right?
9.3.2008 4:43pm
whit:
kirk, as long as the "you" is the 2nd person plural... i never said I *personally* arrested anybody during WTO

as to your question, my answer is yes. this is actually a point i think a lot of people here (since they are lawyers) naturally miss. what is required to make an arrest is probable cause. that is a lower standard than what is required for a prosecutor to (ethically) charge a case, and certainly less than what is required to win it. heck, i've made perfectly valid arrests in the past that needed to be made, that i thought would never get to trial nor should they have been. fwiw, in domestic violence cases (frequently he said/she said and often with little or no other evidence), those arrests are frequently MANDATED by law (the only crimes that MANDATE arrest in my state) even though the cops on scene have significant doubts about the guilt of the party arrested, LET ALONE that the case will be provable in court.

i did not see anybody arrested during WTO where the arrest was not a valid arrest. what i was most impressed with, frankly, was the incredible restraint shown by cops. you had days of wild rioting, violent rioting, and the extent of suspect injuries rose basically to the level of a few ouchies.

yes, the time aspect is critical. imagine this. you are marching for 14 to 18 hrs straight, encountering violence and vandalism along the way probably dozens of times. you encounter literally thousands of people, and if you are on an arrest team, you might make a dozen arrests then go RIGHT BACK to what you were doing after handing the arrestee off to a processing officer to be brought from the scene. a WEEK later you are going to remember individual details of each arrest, distinct from the other arrests, be able to identify the person you arrested, the location, etc.? no way.
9.3.2008 5:02pm
Sieg Heil RNC:
Let see affidavit:

"Affiants have good reason to believe..."

What kind of objective PC is that?

They THINK they have, but they they don't present an ACTUAL PC.

"to cause harm to police officers and as well damage to public and private property [...] photographs and maps of downtown St. Paul.." ROTLF

Wait, there is more:

"... critical infrastructure" Yea, right, having pic of downtown hotel is SCARRRY!


Wait, there is more:

"...paint and spray paint"

"...nails, screws, bricks". Did this moron Tony Samec copy and paste off the internet?

Since when having bricks on private property is illegal?

But wait: "hollowed out puppets" I like that. Ridicule of RNC offical can really harm!

"urine and feces [I KID YOU NOT!] ...modems...flash drives..."

And here is an ouright perjury of Tony Samec:

"Affiant applies of issuance of a search warrant upon the following grounds: the possesion of the property above contitutes a crime".

Lie. Case closed.

I declare that "judge" Joanne M. Smith is

a rubber stamping police whore.


I also would like to know, how many provocateurs are actually police themselves.
9.3.2008 5:08pm
Hoosier:
I also would like to know, how many provocateurs are actually police themselves.

6 1/2.
9.3.2008 5:10pm
Marlon:

Kirk:

I must have missed school the day they got to the "and then she assaulted the police officers who came to arrest her" part of the story.



You may have missed the school altogether. Here is something straight from ".gov" domain:

"...she was arrested for disobeying an Alabama law requiring black people to relinquish seats to white people when the bus was full."

Is the government lying too?
9.3.2008 5:19pm
whit:
do you not understand the difference between being arrested for purposefully violating a law you consider unjust... hint: it's called conscientious objection.

and...

obstructing, and even violently obstructing somebody else's arrest?

note also that rosa parks didn't whinge about what the cops did. the whole point is that the cops and rosa were both following rule of law. and as part of the process, the law was challenged and changed. that's entirely different from the case in hand.

the more you spout about rosa parks, the more you support the exactly opposite point from what you are trying to justify.

it's so absurd.

i've engaged in conscientious objection. i have openly violated a law to protest injustice in full intentional view of the authorities. i have never obstructed anybody else's arrest or attacked police, like the cases we are discussing
9.3.2008 5:27pm
Kirk:
Marlon,
9.3.2008 5:28pm
Kirk:
Oh, never mind. Whit said it much better (and far less sarcastically) than I was trying to...
9.3.2008 5:33pm
SATA_Interface:
With a name like Seig Heil, how can I not take you seriously? I mean, my name isn't a huge improvement, but I can understand the difference between a political party and the greatest threat of the past several centuries to progressive human civilization.

But hey, you called that judge a whore, so that's good evidence towards making your point clear and acceptable to all who choose to listen.

Thanks!
9.3.2008 5:41pm