… yes, he was. And he should have gotten it. That’s kinda my point.
He was a lawyer trying to help people beak the law. His “special treatment” should involve prison time and being barred from practising law when he gets out.
How do you figure? Should everyone who acts as a legal observer be disbarred?
He wasn’t “observing”, he was participating in the Occupy Wal-Mart bullshit that was going on.
He wasn’t arrested for being a self-proclaimed legal observer. He was arrested because he didn’t leave the store after he was requested to. I’m not actually a protestor. I’m just hanging out with this group of protestors and moving from place to place with this group of protestors..
If the protestors were smart, they would all buy green legal observer hats.
Yes, congratulations on finding the loophole. Police can effectively nullify the intent of legal observers by simply asking them to leave, and arresting them if they don’t. I’m saying that they shouldn’t, because it makes it look like the police have something to hide. Just like turning off the cameras in an interrogation room. If they exercise their power to ask legal observers to leave and arresting them if they don’t, it’s our right as citizens to call them jackasses for it, and accuse them of trying to hide their questionable police tactics. Right?
Have these self-proclaimed legal observers been given some type of legal immunity from arrest? And who granted them such an immunity?
You’re breaking the law so you’re under arrest. But I’m almost a lawyer and I have a green hat? Oh. OK, have fun storming the castle. Please dispose of your pitchfork and torch in the proper manner. Have a nice day. 
Jesus Christ you’re an idiot.
Loophole? Do you think someone has the right to demonstrate in the middle of a store, disrupting business and costing the owners money? How does arresting someone for trespassing in a Walmart make it look like the police have something to hide?
Absolutely correct.
What you shouldn’t do – although you certainly have the right to do it – is say or imply that the police acted illegally. What is “questionable” about their tactic? Walmart wanted protesters out, whether they were self-styled legal observers or not. He knew he was unwelcome. He did it anyway.
“Jackasses” means you don’t like them. That’s fine. “Corrupt,” implies something else, something you haven’t shown any evidence for.
You’re asking how arresting someone who’s express purpose for being there is to be a watchdog for citizen rights makes it look like the police have something to hide? Is this a trick question?
I don’t believe the police acted illegally. I think they should have asked the legal observers to stay out of the way, removed all of the other protesters first, if that was their prerogative, and then if the legal observers were still hanging around inside the store for some reason and wouldn’t leave despite being asked to, arrest them for trespassing. Although this is a bizarre scenario, as I’m sure the legal observers would want to follow the crowd of protesters anyway.
eta: I didn’t meant to imply that they were corrupt for arresting the legal observer, or that they exhibited any corrupt behavior that night. It’s simply suspicious that they would not want to be observed, like cops who don’t want citizens filming them. I’d be happy to rephrase that part of my post but I think you get my gist now.
Nope, not a trick question. I am asking if you think someone has the right to demonstrate on someone else’s property regardless of what the owner’s wants. And how does arresting someone for trespassing in a Walmart make it look like the police have something to hide?
I’ve already answered both of those questions multiple times on this page. You’re either not engaging in honest debate or you’re too dense to understand the answers.
Assuming you were responding to my questions, can you point to the post where you said if someone has the right to demonstrate on private property? And you only state that they should not arrest them because it makes it look like the police have something to hide. I am asking how arresting someone for trespassing can make it look like the police have something to hide. And on that note do you think that the police should disregard laws if there is a chance someone might think badly about them?
No, you haven’t. You’ve repeatedly stated that the police are acting as though they have something to hide, without backing it up, and you’ve repeatedly evaded the question of why the “legal observer” should get different treatment to the other protesters.
People - especially lawyers - shouldn’t be making it harder for the police to do their job. Taking part in an illegal protest against the police should be grounds for disbarring any lawyer.
I gurss “watchdog for citizen rights” trumps everything else in your world.
…or does it depend on which citizens or which rights?
From the Ferguson, Missouri official website:
Even if the police are technically correct in their actions, a shrinking tax base will not be able to pay their salaries.
Hahahaha. That’s the only thing you’ve said that makes sense and you’ve gotten that wrong. At least you’re consistent. Ya got that goin’ for ya. Yay!
Cite please.