If someone purports to comply but moves unreasonably slowly, that is not in fact compliance, any more than leaving the scene and then returning is. In both cases, the idea is that they are not actually complying.
It’s a question of fact at trial. For the police officer, it’s simply a determination of whether there’s a fair possibility that the conduct violates the law. And if the same set of facts would allow a jury to find guilt, they will support a probable cause determination.
For the record, an HP captain is at least equivalent to a police chief or sheriff.
Yes, I wonder what some of the posters here think of the approach being taken by state police (led by a captain who’s from the town). Putting lives at risk by not having heavy vehicles and mingling with the protesters, I suppose.
Anyone who thinks the police were appropriately handling this situation before needs to click on this link.
A lot of people clearly see the protesters as somehow lesser people and not real Americans. They buy into the idea of police as an occupying force, rather than servants of all the public.
My question is, under what circumstances can cops demand that someone stop videotaping them? If they can’t demand that videotaping them end, and someone hasn’t otherwise invited arrest, can police give the person a different command that necessitates the end to recording them?
WHETHER OR NOT THE COMMAND WAS LEGAL, we need to move toward a society in which there’s a very strong presumption that recording police activity is acceptable, and we need to give all deference possible to someone who’s recording police. If they’re not endangering someone else, or unambiguously using the recording of the police as an excuse to avoid doing something legally required, the police need to allow the recording to continue.
If this means, as a purely hypothetical example, that we need to allow someone recording the police an extra hundred seconds to vacate a McDonald’s, then fucking of course we need to allow that as a society.
Again, I have no opinion on the strict legality of this arrest (that’s a lie, I have an opinion, but it’s not up for discussion). I do have a strong opinion on whether we as a society should have laws that make this arrest legal.
And even then, I have stronger opinions on people who think this arrest is the most significant part of this whole horrorshow, in which my government killed another innocent black dude and then closed ranks behind the killer.
And so you know about it because…?
How quaint. We’ll see how that works for him when the sun goes down and they start shooting.
Because the press got involved, of course.
ETA:
I knew it.
(Further snark considered and deleted for possibly encouraging inter-board drama.)
You really hope that happens too, don’t you ya sick fuck.
I don’t see that an analogy can be drawn between a non-immediate compliance and leave-and-return such that one being a refusal means that the other must be. Do you have a cite, as with leave-and-return, to show that non-immediate compliance has likewise been held to be refusal?
But if defining dispersal is a question of fact for a jury, how can a police officer determine that there’s a fair possibility that the conduct violates the law?
In what way are they real Americans?
Of course the police are public servants. That’s what they’ve been doing - serving the public by making the streets safe for real Americans.
Then in what way was it “never reported to the public”?
No, I just hope he’s got his affairs in order.
What a foul little worm you are.
The police can give a wide set of legal commands in various circumstances. They generally cannot require someone stop recording them, but they can require you to stop doing anything that interferes with their operations.
So the question is: is the “different command” justified, or not?
I agree. But at the same time, recording cannot justify placing oneself in a position which interferes with operations or endangers the videographer. Police can order you to stay away from the shoutout, in other words.
That’s not clear to me. There should not be exceptions in otherwise valid orders to accommodate recording.
By the police, I mean. It was obviously reported to the public, but by the press, and only because they did some digging.
Being concerned for the man’s safety makes me foul? Oh, wait, I forgot - he’s a cop, not a person.
They were born here, they pay taxes and they are risking their safety to try to improve their community. I know their dark skin makes them subhuman to you, but you seem batshit crazy.
This thread is a good indicator of the posters who would herd people onto trains. Y’know, if someone in a uniform asked them to. Authority, and all that.