There were certainly some opportunists. But the root cause was building outrage over a political system that isn’t working for them causing lack of opportunity combined with justifiable outrage over the death of a young man in police custody. This led to massive protests in the streets which reaches critical mass and chaos ensued. When you reach the point where you feel you have nothing to lose, that’s when order breaks down.
Damn, more than some. At least from the videos and pics floating around the web, there were a lot.
That’s pretty specific. How much time do you allow between declaring the protest over and arresting people for interfering?
It was not a few oppurtunists and it was not critical mass from the protests… it was planned.
Again, you don’t declare the protest over. You go in and arrest violent thugs. The “peaceful protesters” have the choice of helping the officers, moving out of the way, or interfering. If they interfere, the statute comes into play.
Frankly I don’t know why the people protesting police brutality and the death of someone in police custody would not just peacefully do what the police want. I guess it’ll have to remain a mystery.
Depending on the nature of the rioting, the violence, and the size of the protests, such forceful restoration of order can sometimes cause more death and injury then it would prevent. This has always been true. It may or may not apply in the current Baltimore events, but I interpret the mayor’s statement of providing “space for destruction” as an acknowledgement of this, and her and her team’s belief that in this environment immediate restoration of order would not be worth the cost.
What if the peaceful protesters aren’t intentionally interfering but are unintentionally in the same space? What if the rioters mix in with the peaceful protesters? In the real world that is what happens, after all. People don’t segregate themselves into “peaceful” and “rioters”. Certainly the peaceful ones would like to, but it isn’t like everyone has either a “P” or an “R” tattooed on their forehead.
In the real world, these kinds of things are always balancing acts to one extent or another. It’s never easy. No one can respond perfectly and correctly. There are always concerns about police attacking innocents and, even if you want to think of the innocents as collateral damage, attacking them is counter-productive. It causes more anger and more protests and more riots.
I wish these things could be handled as easily as many on the right think they can, but they can’t. The real world isn’t easy and situations like this rarely have easy answers.
Tell that to davidm et al. They’ll call you a right-wing Limbaugh stooge, twisting the mayor’s comments “out of context”.
So which is it?
“Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the act made in the first year of King George, for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King!”
Maybe modernize the language a little.
Both. You don’t “declare” the protest over. But once the violence starts, quelling it takes priority over the “right to peacefully protest” - because the protest is no longer “peaceful”.
Or maybe we’ll just think he’s wrong in his interpretation.
You, on the other hand, we’ll definitely call a Limbaugh stooge. Because even when presented with an alternate, more likely interpretation, even when presented with a statement from the Mayor’s office clarifying her comments, you still prefer to believe the right-wing spin that, for whatever reason, the mayor of a large metropolitan city set aside areas for rioters to destroy and then *bragged *about it in a press conference.
Hell, you’ve gone past stooge and straight into “willfully gullible”. I’d like to believe that you’re not so stupid that you’d just immediately swallow whatever spin the conservative talking heads give you, but there’s simply no evidence that it’s true.
It is “more likely” in your opinion, not mine, and of course she “clarified” it - after a storm of criticism and further riots.
So that gives the police the right to arrest everyone?
How much time should the police give warning before starting arrests?
What do you do about protesters who do nothing wrong other than not leaving the area in the split second they’re allotted?
The police can arrest people when they have probable cause that they are committing a crime. Which includes throwing rocks at people, burning cars, vandalizing property, looting stores, and interfering with police.
A policeman can arrest you for doing nothing - just because he’s having a bad day and you’re wearing a loud shirt. But he will have to explain the reasons for the arrest in court later. And if he cannot show probable cause, he’s in trouble.
-
It gives the police the right to disperse the crowd. Whomever refuses to disperse then becomes eligible for arrest.
-
Time to disperese is logistically determined by process and conditions and factors at the time (including imminent danger, crowds, route to safety, etc.)
-
That is a self falsifying statement. “Do nothing wrong” is cancelled out by "not leaving the area the split second they’re allotted.)
Protest is not peaceful. Disperse. Immediately (or insert alloted tiem period here). Failure to comply results in arrest. End of story.
And you don’t see how that invites the very abuses this whole mess was originally about?
How did all the abusive cops get away with it if the abused suspect had a day in court?
How much time do you give if a riot has started? Or do you yell " Disperse now!" as your swinging the nightstick?
No. That’s the only sensible way to have police operate. Probable cause to arrest, and have to be able to justify your actions in court. What’s your alternative method for police to operate? Should they have to leave the scene, find the judge and get an arrest order?
No, I do not see how this invites the very abuses that this whole mess was orignally about. Freddie Gray was not killed for failing to disperse from a riot. If you fail to comply with a lawful order you are subject to arrest. Unlawful assembly is cause for arrest, your feelings on the Freddie Gray tragedy notwithstanding.
Asked and answered