Police Files Say Arrest Tactics Calmed Protest

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Mar 16, 2006.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    link

    from pre-emptive wars to pre-emptive arrests. anyone else see a violation of civil liberties here?
     
  2. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #2
    Remember when 1984 and V Is For Vendetta were fiction? Remember that? Up next, Fahrenheit 451!
     
  3. Rod Rod macrumors 68020

    Rod Rod

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    #3
    It may be "unpatriotic" to see a violation of civil liberties. We are in a post-9/11 world now, which means the government can do anything in the name of security. [/sarcasm]

    This is another one to put in the "pre-crime" or Minority Report file.
     
  4. 2jaded2care macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #4
    New York and other states have masking laws. People who are not participating in a masquerade or similar event can be arrested for wearing masks at public events. These laws were probably passed in response to rallies by hate groups.

    While I support the right of everyone to protest peacefully at approved venues, I see nothing wrong with arresting masked protesters for violating these laws, or for staging paddy wagons in anticipation of violence. As long as police make no "false arrests", I would prefer that situtation to, say, what has happened in France. (There is also the possibility of legal action against the police if they fail to prevent a riot -- not to say that such legal action would necessarily succeed.)

    My 2 cents.
     
  5. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #5
    nowhere in the article does it say that those arrested were charged under such a law. further, the article reveals that police tactics were to arrest those who they thought might cause trouble, not those who actually committed a crime.

    further still:
    ...indicating that those arrested did not, in fact, break any laws.

    do you have additional information that they were arrested under this masking law? my information comes solely from the article.
     
  6. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #6
    Here comes the control freaks that work for the police state, Its not about catching those that break law, its about intimidation and abusive power. Its been documented that cops have gone undercover trying to get those demonstrating to commit illegal activity??? This isnt the America my grandparents fought WW2 and won to have. The fact that this is sealed reveals how corrupt govt is even at local and state levels. Hiding the fact that its doing illegal activity. How the heck can the state predict future events? this is illegal as hell and they better hope i'm never on the jury.
     
  7. 2jaded2care macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #7
    According to the article quoted, I cannot know the charges against the protesters, since the cases were apparently sealed.

    However, I did think it likely that masking laws were used, since I was aware of their existence, as well as the fact that protest groups had warned their own people of the existence of these laws, even referring to the WEF event: http://www.rncnotwelcome.org/media/onmasks.html

    In addition, I have since found this article from the BBC ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1793540.stm ) in which police had indicated their intention to enforce this law.

    While I certainly agree that police should not be inciting violent reactions from protesters, I am not sure that masked, pipe-wielding protesters charging police lines (if indeed that is what happened -- apparently there are conflicting accounts) constitutes "peaceably assembled".

    Government has all sorts of "pre-emptive" ways to arrest people before criminal or negligent destruction takes place. Drunk driving laws criminalize behavior which may or may not lead to a car accident. Likewise speeding laws, and restrictions on concealed carry of weapons. What about "possession of burglary tools"? One can be arrested merely for possessing a lockpick, regardless of whether it has ever been used unlawfully. Possession is considered evidence of intent.

    In future, however, I will endeavor to stick strictly to the facts as presented, or present any additional facts... (edited for smugness) although I question the "factualness" ("factuality"?) of the comment that the charges were dismissed because those arrested did not break any laws (and not possibly because of unavailability of officers to testify, or that prosecutors did not feel the cases worth pursuing given the likely sentences).
     

Share This Page