I find it interesting that you mention a lack of direct evidence (since the only source for any of this we have is Mr. Green Hat’s say-so), and then continue to assert that the other four observers weren’t arrested because racism.
I don’t always post but when I do, I post wearing my Gold-Fringed SDMB Mod Observer Green Hat so I’m untouchable.
True enough.
But the hat identified him – rightly or wrongly – to the police, and their order to leave (presumably) included him. (I grant you that this is an inference, as opposed to anything directly evident from the somewhat sparse record before us).
So based on what he said, I’m assuming he did not leave while the people he was supposed to observe remained inside, and that this provided the probable cause to arrest him. If I were to learn that this assumption is ungrounded, obviously my answer changes.
It seems a remarkably tone-deaf policy, if it happened that way.
This is the critical question. But I don’t see how his narrative supports your conjecture. The relevant passage is here:
It is unclear when the police first ordered everyone to disperse. But he says “the protestors complied,” at least initially, suggesting that the refusal to disperse did not happen until after they started moving toward the door. It is also unclear how much time passes after the protestors locked arms and whether those protestors had stopped moving toward the exit.
I think you most you can say from that passage is that we really don’t know whether he refused to leave after being ordered to do so. Either way, the police belief about his affiliation with the protestors is not relevant to whether he was refusing to leave or not. (There’s also the separate question of whether he was singled out for arrest because he is black.)
The only way the hat becomes relevant is if you understand the events to have been that only certain people (e.g., protestors) were being asked by Wal-Mart to leave. But the author says “the police had persuaded the manager to close the 24-hour Walmart,” suggesting they had just shut down the store entirely. So at that point anyone refusing to leave could be arrested.
If it were the case that Wal-Mart decided to eject only the protestors, and the police made a similar order, then the hat starts to matter. But then the police action gets even harder to defend, since not only would they have to prove that he refused to leave (again, unclear from his account), but also that the arresting officer reasonably believed that the legal observer got the notice that his leave to remain had been withdrawn. That turns on whether it is objectively reasonable to think that men wearing “legal observer” hats are protestors. Maybe that’s a winning argument in Missouri, but I can tell you that where I live I would have zero problem finding a half-dozen cops to testify that they know that legal observers generally are not coordinating with protestors beyond showing up at the right date and time of the protest and neither the police nor the observers consider them protestors.
In the context of a street protest, perhaps this is so. But I have no trouble with the concept that Walmart specifically wanted those people associated with the protest to leave, regardless of whether they were ‘active’ or merely ‘observer.’ And I have no trouble with saying that the author knew of the antipathy Walmart had, and understood the police order to vacate to include him. (At least for the purposes of probable cause analysis – I recognize that this is nowhere close to sufficient to convict him).
This strikes me as Burger King II – we discussed the same issues when reporters were arrested following their refusal (or, if you prefer, their laconic compliance) with police orders to vacate a fast food restaurant,
Entirely conceivable, and entirely within their power. Though, again, somewhat contrary to the facts we have involving closing down the whole store.
The question is whether the cops would reasonably have expected that he knew whatever order they gave applied to him. We have no idea what that order was. If it was a general beckoning of everyone toward the exits, then the hat is irrelevant and the only question is his compliance.
If it was an order directed solely at protestors, then much turns on exactly what they said. If the speculation is that they communicated something about “protestors” leaving, then I think they have a rough road on probable cause. Again, in my neck of the woods, I could easily call one or more police officers to the stand who would testify that they do not understand legal observers at any protest to be part of the protest absent other evidence, and would not expect an order directed at protestors in a store to be obeyed by legal observers or other bystanders.
The issue there was how quickly must someone comply to be considered not refusing to comply. That may or may not be one of the sub-issues here, but the larger issues are whether this guy had notice that he was supposed to leave, and if so, whether he was arrested because others refused to leave and the cops just grouped him in with them. (And whether they selectively arrested him as a black man.)
Well, the main problem with that larger issue is the paucity of the record before us. The only account of the incident is his, and even if it’s not self-serving it certainly lacks sufficient detail to reach conclusions.
I agree, as I have acknowledged from my first post on the subject. What I found objectionable was this notion that he could be arrested for being a legal observer if some of the protesters decided to refuse to leave. I think that line of analysis is wrong for multiple reasons.
However, I now understand you to be saying something slightly different from that, which is that he could be arrested if an order to disperse was seen to reasonably include him because of his hat, and he refused to leave. If that’s what you’re saying, our disagreement is simply over how reasonable it would be to lump him in with the protestors (since we just don’t know if he refused to leave or not). Based on my experience with protests and with working with the police tasked to cover protests, I don’t think that would have been a reasonable inference on their part. But it’s possible that they came to that situation with a different set of experiences than the police where I practice, and might therefore reach different reasonable conclusions about LOs.
A hat. A green hat, to be scrupulously explicit. Now, I don’t own a green hat, not likely to be found at Wal-Mart. My sympathy would be with the protestors, usually are, but I might not be in the mood to “get my fair share of abuse”. So, I would not be a participant, necessarily.
But wearing a green hat might be probable cause? I didn’t know that before you guys told me, that a green hat had some legal significance, but you can be arrested for wearing a green hat?
Seriously, with a straight face, a fucking green hat!?
I really hope the police are doing as much preparation to remain calm, be organized and efficient, and to do their job without military tactics, violence, or over-reaction.
From your lips to the Ears.
Which is going to happen whether or not the grand jury true-bills him or not.
I read these idiots’ “Rules of Engagement”, which achieved what I would have said was impossible - I now think less of these protesters than I did before. A group that asks not to be treated as enemies (no. 16) even when they throw water bottles (no. 15) is not a group that can or should be taken seriously.
No, your fucking “safe houses” aren’t sacred, and won’t and shouldn’t be treated differently from any other place harboring law-breakers. Behave yourselves and you won’t get tear-gassed. And don’t try to tell the police that they should let you have your tantrums in public. Protests are fine (even for people as stupid as these folks are) but “let us get away with rioting” is not going to fly.
Go draw a chalk outline around your silly ass in front the store Brown robbed. Then stick the chalk up your nose and sing a few choruses of “We Snall Novercobe”.
Regards,
Shodan
But you can’t tag someone out if he’s on base.
Shodan, what do you think about the fact that, in Ferguson, black people are more likely to be subject to traffic stops by the police than white people, and less likely to have contraband? It seems to me that the protesters are correct that the Ferguson PD treats black people differently than white people.
I’ll repost the links (and the post I made here):
This is not specifically related to police shootings, but it does demonstrate numerically how police in Ferguson, MO treat black people differently than white people… two links – an Op-Ed from the NYT, with data cited from here, that says the following:
There’s more, from the data – Ferguson, MO is about 63% black, 33% white. But for over 5000 traffic stops by the Ferguson MO police department, only 13% of those stopped by the police were white, with nearly all the rest black. So the Ferguson PD disproportionately stopped and searched black drivers, and found signficantly less contraband than on the white drivers they stopped and searched.
It seems to me that the Ferguson PD is more likely to pull you over, and more likely to search you, if you’re black, even though black people are statistically less likely to have contraband. That doesn’t seem right to me
You think police should “escalate the use of force” and treat protestors as non-citizen “enemy combatants” if someone in a crowd throws a water bottle?
That’s the kind of attitude that starts riots. Let’s hope the police aren’t so hot-headed.
Actually the knowledge that you can get away with it encourages law-breaking.
But just to be clear, yes, if you throw bottles at the police, you should be arrested, you idiot.
Regards,
Shodan
If people in the crowd are throwing things at the police, the riot has already begun.
Where do the Rules of Engagement say that people who throw bottles at the police should not be arrested?
Oh, that’s right, they don’t. You find it necessary to lie to make your point. I’m shocked.