Instead of trying to calm things down, the police have upped the level of violence by a couple orders of magnitude. The protesters tonight were gathered but peaceful, no rioting or looting going on. The police told them they were instituting a curfew and the protesters had to go. The police do not have the authority to put a curfew in place, although they do enforce them. They arrested two reporters for sitting in a McDonalds.
You have some strange ideas.
Refilling their drinks on separate visits.
They have the authority to disperse a disorderly crowd, don’t they?
Were they booked on a charge of “sitting in a McDonalds”?
They are from the Huffington Post and Washington Post.
Undoubtedly rabble-rousers!!
…they weren’t booked for anything. Another reporter called the Chief of Police and asked why they were arrested: to which the Chief of Police replied, “Oh, god.” He then called downtown and ordered them released.
And then said that they were arrested by “probably somebody who didn’t know better.” Bang up job on training, Chief Jackson!
So justice was served, then.
Well, yeah. Except for the illegal arrest, assault, and the interference with a free press, there was really nothing wrong with the situation. :rolleyes:
It’s illegal to arrest a person unlawfully refusing an order to disperse? It’s illegal for police to use force to subdue a resisting suspect? Does freedom of the press exempt one from police authority?
…if you are a dickhead, sure.
They were doing nothing illegal. They did not refuse. They did disperse. They did not resist. They were assaulted. They were unlawfully detained.
If they’d dispersed, they wouldn’t have been detained, as thy would no longer have been present to be detained. They were detained, therefore they were present, therefore they had not dispersed and were doing something illegal. QED.
Since when is a coupla guys an unruly mob that requires to be “dispersed”?
Since they were present in an area which the police had ordered to disperse.
Now explain how Connie Booth weighs the same as a duck.
…don’t bother trying to explain anything to Smapti. He actually considers intimidating the press to be “justice.” He was busy justifying the story even before he knew anything about it. He couldn’t even be bothered looking up the story to see what they were charged with. Don’t expect him to argue the facts. He will just keep making stuff up.
How in the fuck do you seriously not see how wrong the police are behaving? You don’t fucking point sniper rifles at citizens doing nothing more than sitting in a protest. You don’t arrest people for no charge, beat the fuck out of them, spray tear gas into neighborhoods, and shoot unarmed teenagers and claim to be enforcing law and order.
If you were in Poland in the 1940s, you probably would have fucking cheered as the Nazis emptied out the Jewish ghettos.
Hey, what’s wrong with idle gawking? As a life-long idle gawker, I’m offended by what you seem to be implying. As far as I’m concerned, idle gawking is a basic human right.
Unless it’s on a busy freeway, in which case you should be drawn and quartered.
I’m confused why you are confused.
The crowds have been rioting every night as soon as it gets dark. The people in the crowd were wearing masks. You really think they were peaceful? Do you have any evidence that this night they were peaceful when every other night there’s been violence?
What are they supposed to do? Let the mob burn away?
As to a curfew, can anybody share the straight dope on that? A curfew at night makes perfect sense in a case where there’s rioting every night. But if the police don’t have the right to instate one who does? How’s that work?