I think I already answered this question even with an hour between each object, but by the statute, no. It doesn’t put a time-frame on dispersal.
…your claim was that " It’s when the Molotov cocktails start flying that the tear gas comes out." It isn’t nit-picking to point out that this statement is not true. Your position has gone from that position to “they were protesting in a place where at some stage over the course of four days someone threw a Molotov cocktail.” Well duh. Its obvious you know your initial stated position was wrong. What is puzzling is why you are going to such great lengths to avoid admitting you were wrong.
Wow, last night was a bloodbath! Looting! Arson! Cops shot down in the street! You were right, Smapti!
Now maybe that the cops aren’t acting like thugs, we can get to the bottom of what happened to Michael Brown.
I don’t actually know if constructive refusal is a concept recognized in this area of law. It seems to me that an alternative would be to require officers to give specific instructions for faster packing and an opportunity to comply before they can arrest. So, in your scenario, it may be incumbent upon the officer to say to the photographer that he must pack more quickly or he will be arrested. I think that would be a pretty good rule, perhaps more consistent with due process, and preferable to using constructive refusal. (Though, again, I don’t know if actual courts have agreed with me or not.)
If you’re gonna have a rule of constructive refusal, then I think in order to satisfy due process then it has to be clear from the circumstances that compliance with the order required quicker packing. If police are clearing people because some assholes are throwing molotov cocktails off a building, then it may be fair to arrest someone for constructive refusal if they engage in the conduct you describe. If the police are merely, say, clearing an illegal occupy-style encampment, then I don’t think it would be obvious from the circumstances that it would be non-compliance to take 10 minutes instead of 5 in the absence of more specific orders, even if the additional 5 minutes were spent chit-chatting with neighbors.
All that said, assuming there is such a thing as constructive refusal in the context of delay instead of a rule requiring more specific orders, and assuming that the circumstances in this hypo made a reasonable person aware that they needed to pack with more haste to comply with the order (or that the 60-second pause was spent doing something like just starting at the officer and grinning), then I would agree with your conclusion.
My claim has not changed. It remains true. Even you are basically now in agreement with it, finally, even though you don’t seem to realize it. I don’t know why you are so confused about it, but I don’t think any further explanation on my part will help you.
But that’s exactly what the officer was doing. He must have told him to get moving a dozen times, at least.
First, we were discussing Bricker’s hypothetical.
Second, an order to “get moving” or “let’s go,” is pretty much the epitome of a vague order when someone is already moving and packing their things. If instead he said something like, “You have one minute to pack all of your things and leave or you will be arrested,” then that is the sort of order that, if lawful under the circumstances, would warrant arrest for non-compliance.
Just saying “Let’s go,” while the person is packing their things and then arresting them for taking one minute instead of thirty seconds doesn’t strike me as giving the person a fair notice and opportunity to comply.
Finally, would you care to address the issue of whether there was an unlawful assembly? You seem confident that this arrest was proper, but it appears to have taken place in the daylight in a calm restaurant. What is your basis for concluding that there was a violent crowd nearby?
OK. We see several nights of Ferguson cops throwing tear gas around willy-nilly and shooting people with rubber bullets. Experts in crowd control in conflict zones say that the Ferguson PD is making the situation worse. The police chief in St. Louis says Ferguson PD is making it worse. Lots of Iraq veterans take to social media to say they’re screwing the pooch. Then, a new police force comes in, leaves the heavy weapons at home, and the violence stops, even though the crowds that night are way bigger than the crowds the previous night.
And your takeaway from that is, “The protestors just calmed down! It’s a Christmas Miracle!” Really? The Highway Patrol were just the lucky beneficiary of the crowd’s unexplained unilateral de-escalation? Seriously, that’s your read on this situation?
On the SDMB? Good grief, if you held a poll asking “Is up the opposite of down?”, you’d have answers broken down as:
10%: That depends. (followed by 5-paragraph essay invoking St. Thomas Aquinas, Alan Ginsberg, Chiang Kai-shek, and MC 900 ft. Jesus).
10%: Did you post in the wrong forum?
10%: Pointless joke.
10%: Link to YouTube video which has been removed for copyright violations.
10%: No, thanks to Obama.
10%: No, thanks to Bush.
10%: Why can’t we be like Europe/Canada/Sri Lanka?
10%: Is anyone else confused by OITNB episode 2a7? Are they supposed to be like in prison or something?
10%: What is the deal with airline food?
10%: “Yes” with an “if,” or “no” with a “but.”
…I’m not basically in agreement at all. I think the claims of Molotov cocktails being thrown have been exaggerated based on reports from a single source. None of the video evidence (and there has been plenty) has shown tear gas fired in response to Molotov cocktails being thrown. They have shown tear gas fired at people yelling loudly from their own property. We’ve seen beanbags fired at and hitting reporters without a protester in site. We’ve seen tear gas fired at news crews. All of that footage has been shown unedited. All you’ve got to back up your case is a few words in a story credited to an AP reporter.
I’m not sure why I’m bothering to respond to you, but here goes.
No one said anything about not enforcing laws, not prosecuting those who committed crimes during the riots, or punishing the police for doing their job. No one is talking about “slitting throats again” because no one was slitting throats to begin with. No one but you envisions a binary choice between anarchy and authoritarianism. Almost everyone who is knowledgeable about policing has criticized the Ferguson PD for acting like the cops in a banana republic. And yes, when American cops start acting like the cops in a police state, they have to go.
I think all we need to know about this situation (generally) is apparent from what is happening now. The Ferguson police were replaced by state troopers, and the city is more or less back to normal, almost by magic.
I think you are using two different definitions of justified. Initially the use of the word justified seemed to be objective. Now you are making it sound subjective.
I might be very mad at the man who murdered my family. That rage would be understandable but I don’t see how that would make me justified in killing him.
Similarly in this case, people are angry and they are not justified in engaging in violent protest but their anger and their acting on that anger might be understandable.
I could hold that view without thinking that these people are less moral than me.
Fair enough. I shouldn’t have mixed the two. I was just trying to tie it back to what the officer actually said.
I disagree. Saying “get moving” or “let’s go” a dozen times at least to a person who is sitting there dragging their feet, arguing, asking questions and filming them is as clear as it gets. There’s no need for a timeline of how many seconds or minutes they have to move because the answer is zero. They need to move now.
Nope. In fact I’ve said from the beginning that to me the arrest seems improper, despite the fact that the journalist comes across as a complete jerk.
But based on the discussion you and Bricker are having I just might change my mind. If it does hinge on the question of whether the order was clear and whether the journalist complied with it then I can’t see how it wasn’t clear.
But my main concern is whether it was legal for them to order the journalist out in the first place. I’m not so sure about that.
THIS!
***- FUTBOL! … was
Trans Fat Og … was
True Blue Jack
Five years ago the Ferguson police beat an innocent man and charged him with “property damage” for bleeding on their uniforms. I wonder if they’ll bill Michael Brown’s family for the bullets used to shoot him.
In personal news: I had been vaguely worried (maybe that’s too strong a word, curious? maybe?) about my cunt grandmother and my uncle who still lives with her in a really creepy and sad way. They live in Ferguson just off West Florissant. But I just saw an article where they were interviewed, even had a pic of them in their back yard with a neighbor, and sounds like they are doing fine. So, I guess I can go back to not thinking about them.
Unfortunately, it appears that Brown robbed a convenience store shortly before being shot.
Perhaps more unfortunately, that information will be used to justify everything that occurred after the fact.
One thing I’ll just point out now: Until this press conference, the robbery was never mentioned. This leads me to believe that the officer who shot Brown was not contacting him in connection with the robbery.
If he HAD been investigation or responding to a robbery, that would have been mitigating factor #1 from the very beginning.
You certainly have a point. Wear a hat and it won’t show.
Before reading this post I did briefly ponder what I would probably be thinking and feeling as one of the store owners.
Man, I’d be pissed!
Why did my store have to be one of the ones ripped off and vandalized?! What do I have to do with any of this, with what the police did? How am I going to recover from this? The assholes that did this just wanted an excuse to take my valuable merchandise for free…
And so on…
But if I were Michael Brown, I’d be thinking…
or rather…
If I were Michael Brown, I’d be…
I’m sure even you can finish the sentence.
Stills from the convenience store security camera footage. Brown is seen shoving the store owner out of the way on his way out the door with the stolen items.