This solves the mystery of weather or not the bands’ activities were planned ahead of time.
I’m still wondering why, if it was so urgent that everyone leave, the other teams stands were still occupied,* and the cheer squad was still active on the field. If all this was so important that they just had to assault Mims why were all those people just fine carrying on? Also, if there were safety concerns why cut the lights? That is just not going to improve safety in anyway.
*Indeed, in the above story while Mims was describing why it was challenging to stop the band before they were done, he casually mentioned that the people in the stands on the other side, was the opposing team’s Band. The band that had supposedly already packed up and left.
The thing that always amazes me is that police, with the full power of their job are doing security. t
This simply blows my mind. I’m thinking back to the last professional sporting event I attended - ALL security is handled by security guards, NOT police. The police have a public presence but very much in the background - they are there to be called upon if the situation extends beyond what security can handle.
What I would have seen, would have been security trying to clear the field/stands, and if the band leader refused the police would have been called in to negotiate/enforce - i.e - it would have been a multi-step process over an extended time, not on a few minutes as in this case.
It amazes me that the police would try to enforce “stop playing right now” when there’s nothing obvious or dangerous that the band is doing (eg: blocking traffic) - they were playing music, not inciting a riot or holding a sit-in.
The Alabama band director who was shocked by a police stun gun and arrested after refusing to stop his band’s performance
Even the CNN article sets out with a misleading first sentence. He was arrested for not stopping quickly enough (he did stop the performance before the arrest), he was tazed for resisting arrest.
Also, I think a few posters seem to be under the impression that there was only one cop. In fact, there were at least 3 police and I think a half-dozen police and school security combined.
The first line in this quote is not said to Mims. There’s a whole unintelligible conversation between the cop and this other man identified by his shirt as “Instructor” before the officer approaches Mims, and this line is said as he’s leaving the other man behind, and approaches Mims whose first reaction to the officer approaching him is “Get out of my face.” Maybe he heard the last “let’s go” but that’s not clear.
I really get the impression that there’s history here, or the officer with the camera is coming into a situation that’s already tense. I don’t think this is first contact. I think there’s more to the story, and that further information could swing the narrative either against Mims or against the police.
Right now it seems like a “You’re both wrong here” situation to me, but unfortunately Mims is the only one who will likely face consequences for being wrong.
Beck, I’m afraid we have to face the reality that, in America, people hate rules and authority. Sure, it’s okay if the other guy gets a ticket, but me?
If you read about tasing, it was hailed as a breakthrough in policing. It was a way to disable a criminal without killing him or damaging him permanently. Now, and in this very thread, it is referred to as an overly violent police response to someone who is breaking the law. And yes, defying a police directive is breaking the law.
Too many people have taken “personal freedom” to the level where it means, “I can do whatever I want, and how dare you challenge me on it.” “Rights” used to have a twin sister. Her name was “Responsibility” and, when “Rights” got out of hand, she would reel him in with a firm hand by reminding him that his rights end when they begin to cause harm to someone else or society in general. I’m afraid “Responsibility” died an untimely death.
And the actions of the band director caused what harm to who?
Yeah. Mims made some bad calls. But he didn’t put anyone in danger, and he’s been more than amply punished already. The police made some bad calls, created a dangerous situation, and (according to Mims, who claims to be getting ongoing medical care to restore function to his shoulders) actively damaged someone. They need to be reined in.
You’re just not getting it. It was a police directive, not a hypothetical situation being discussed in a Harvard law class. Once people decide it is okay to defy authority based on their own interpretation of the law or a situation, you’re opening the door to anarchy and the chaos that ensues.
I was of course stating the obvious fact that when whoever is in control of a venue wants the event to be over, if the music is still going, then shutting down the music is a necessary task so that attendees understand that it’s time to exit. Ideally the music would shut itself down at closing time, sometimes that doesn’t happen.
Obviously we can and do disagree on whether the event had run overtime to an excessive degree. An article above states that it was 18 minutes over. In my experience that’s more than 3x what normally happens in this situation. Given other statements that the other band had quit, and many attendees had left, obviously there was not a prearranged after-game party situation. But we get an official statement from the school or district that they authorized the director to keep going more than 18 minutes, then obviously I will have to eat my entire hat on this one.
The director’s attorney has been on camera and said a lot of things. But note the 2 conspicuously absent statements here:
No statement that the arrest was wrongful or unlawful.
No statement that the director had a right to play for over 18 minutes after the buzzer.
They are protesting that too much force was used in the arrest. Pending more evidence, I’m open to persuasion on that one, but nobody’s saying he had a right any right to be there 18 minutes over, or ignore police who were trying to clear the event.
Again, if contrary facts come out, then I’ll have to change my position, but that’s where things appear to stand right now.
No, but it is against the law. Any lawyer will tell you not to contest a directive/ticket/mandate with a police officer. Contest it legally through the courts. He should have left as directed. Then, he and his school could have filed a complaint. It might very well have ended up with a policy change in how that kind of situation would be handled in the future. That would ultimately benefit many people. Instead, we have a mess.
I found this immediately: “Code § 32-5A-4. Current with legislation from the 2023 Regular and Special Sessions. No person shall willfully fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of any police officer or fireman invested by law with authority to direct, control or regulate traffic.”
I found this more general statement: " Disobeying a lawful order of a police officer carries higher penalties to those who refuse to follow orders lawfully issued by an officer of the law. It’s a second-degree misdemeanor, meaning its punishable by up to 60 days in jail, six months of probation and/ or a $500 fine."
I can’t believe you asked me that. My turn. Please post a law that says it is okay to defy police directives that are not endangering the public or, in and of themselves, breaking the law.
