Slashdot Mirror
Police Arrest Man For Refusing To Tweet
RichZellich writes "Police arrested a senior vice president from Island Def Jam Records, saying he hindered their crowd-control efforts by not cooperating. The crowd at a mall where Justin Bieber was appearing got out of control, and police wanted the man to send a tweet asking for calm; he refused and they arrested him on a felony assault charge 'for putting people in danger.'"
How would they had read the tweet? Or are everyone actually having twitter "on" all the time in mobile phone?
This is almost like a new pizza place would open in the town square and people would be lining to try it out. As a special opening gift, one random guy would be chosen to decide what toppings go to the largest pizza ever done. Of course everyone would want to chose their favourite ones, crowd would go wild and police would have to be called in and arrest everyone. So now theres tons of pizzas done but everyone is jail. what does the owner do? He enjoys the worlds largest pizza himself.
I hope the world doesn't turn in to even more "you're always online" place. I usually even leave my phone home when I'm going spending good time somewhere. I don't need to be reachable all the time.
n/t
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Sounds like the cops need to arrest themselves. How do they think the crowd will react to something like this?
Do I side with the Fascist cops or the Nazi record exec?
And no i'm not new here.
How is a tweet requesting calm going to do anything. Most of the people wouldn't pay any attention. The cops should have just used their loudspeaker and told the attendees to calm it down or be arrested. The arresting officer should have some unpaid time off at least for being so stupid.
Was their bullhorn broken?
How long before this is held up as an example of why the forces of Public Safety(tm) need to be given the ability to impersonate any twitter user, for the security of the people?
All piling on, screaming, yelling, rabid comments, without knowing why or how.
Have you watched the video? Did you see how PACKED it was?
Where were the orderly lines, set up with ropes, enforced with security? Where were any possible safety measures?
This record exec, if he arranged this, screwed up in a HUGE way. It was pretty clear that NO one was organizing or making this event orderly. I'm surprised people weren't getting pushed over the waist high walls into the second level, or falling and getting crushed under foot.
I'm sorry, but there is a whole lot of circumstances here beside what the oh-so-informative title says. The record label and the mall need to be held responsible for that total cluster fuck. Ordering him to tweet WAS compeltely reasonable when you see the danger involved that this man caused by a total lack of preparation.
Damn non-tweeters. Lock them all up and throw away the key, I say.
If we allow non-tweeters, what's next? Non-myspacers? Non-facebookers? It's utter madness!
Oh, hay guyz I juss got a tweet saying we need to chillax and GTFO sall cool tho cuz they let us kno on twit
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
So, you already have an unruly crowd waiting for the arrival of someone special, and you want to effectively disseminate a rumor* that said special person isn't arriving? And that's supposed to calm the crowd down and get them to leave peacefully? Must be some new-age thinking, there...
*As previous poster(s) have mentioned, a message via twitter is only going to be received by a select few people who have access to twitter in that situation, and therefore, its only going to spread to everyone via word of mouth. In other words, a rumor.
The arrogance of these cops is astounding. Apparently they think that everyone who is not a cop is their slave. Arresting someone like that just because they failed to say "how high" when the police say "jump" is, in my opinion, simply criminal behavior.
Someone needs to waylay these cops in a dark alley and beat the shit out of them.
What if he doesn't use twitter?
Do you honestly think they would have asked that of him if he didn't?
But I hope he is exonerated, sues the fuck out of the county and wins. Not that he needs the money, but there needs to be a clear message sent that you can't twist the law any which way you please when you piss the authorities off.
Some people should be arrested for what they decide to tweet about.
It seems to me that this is more about the label executive not wanting all those people to leave, than anything about twitter.
It might have been something like this:
[Police]: Please, if this teen singer of yours shows up, all those girls might go crazy and we may have some serious crowd control problems here.
[Executive]: I'm not telling all those people that have come here for my "product" to go away.
[Police]: We are serious, please sir, tell them to go or we may have some problemes.
[Executive]: You can't tell me what to do!
[Police]: It's a crowd control situation, you have to cooperate.
[Executive]: Fuck you!
[Police]: Well... now you'll sleep in jail...
Or, you know, you just took the bait dangled right in front of you, and totally failed to make any attempt to understand what the real situation was.
Except they knew beforehand that he did have a Twitter account. IMHO the whole Twitter angle isn't even relevant; the police should have just stood up and told everybody to go home. Really, are 3,000 teenage girls too much for the police to handle?
Arrest him! He's the problem!
Oh, Hello End Times....I thought you were here.....
WTF? Over?
As much as I hate that Youtuber douchebag Justin Bieber, I think the cops were probably pretty stupid for arresting him, especially considering what appear to be the facts. However, I'd be pretty pissed off if I was a cop and I had to disperse a mob of whiny, caffeinated teenage girls congregating over *that* guy too, so I can empathize. I still anticipate a false arrest case.
Tweeting is the ONLY way to break up a riot of teenage girls!
Sugapablo
Who knew?
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Did they really expect everyone to suddenly chill out and go find something else to do because of a twitter post? I find this line of reasoning difficult to comprehend...then again they are cops.
This can't be serious.
I'm pretty sure that he was tweeting to the crowd at the time he was asked to do this, and I'm pretty sure the crowd was reading those tweets, cause they reacted to a tweet about him being arrested. If an exec who helped disorganize (I can't say organize cause it wasn't) this event refuses to help disarm the situation then he should be arrested and charged. Idiots who don't bother to asses the whole situation and knee jerk that he was falsely arrested need to step back and smell the unruly crowd and if you haven't been in one of these you have no idea how dangerous it can become really quickly. Any steps to help keep them calm would help immensely even if it only reached 1 in 25 of them it would still have a calming effect.
According to police, the crowd was broken up after safety concerns were raised, but Bieber's record exec, James Roppo, Tweeted that the singer was still signing. This caused fans to go berzerk and rush forward, breaking down barriers.
http://www.limelife.com/blog-entry/Fans-of-Tween-King-Justin-Bieber-Cause-Mall-Riot/26650.html
Roppo continued to tweet about the autograph signing even after it was canceled and ended up being arrested for reckless endangerment among other crimes.
http://military.rightpundits.com/2009/11/24/james-roppo-man-arrested-for-not-tweeting-cancellation-of-justin-bieber-event-photos/
Crappy summary linking to crappy reporting.
Some lawyers are going to make a boat load of money over this.
I dont' know about you but there ain't much more scary than thousands of screaming 12 year old girls. They should throw the whole group in jail or messing with teenage hormones.
It all starts at 0
"Can't you people handle your own problems?....Do we have to police the entire town?"
Seriously though...isn't the summary a little misleading? The man was not arrest because he 'refused to tweet' anymore than someone arrested for not pulling over was arrested for 'refusing to turn slightly to the right (or left depending on the country)'.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
....but WHO the frak is Justin Bieber, and do we care if he gets trampled? Granted, being arrested for not "tweeting" is a wrong on so many levels it's not even funny (I don't have a twitter account, don't plan on getting one any time soon), but still....
If the event was promoted on twitter, you're damn right it is reasonable to expect that it MIGHT be an effective communication tool. At the very least, it'll maybe stop MORE people from showing up. And if the cops said "look, there's this crazy crowd, it's going to get ugly, please help" and the guy won't- well, sorry, that's just being an asshat, and if people do get injured, I don't think an arrest and charge is out of the question. Then the DA has to decide it's worth prosecuting and the court has to decide if it's legit enough to go to trial. And then he gets a trial by jury if he wants it.
Please help metamoderate.
The source in TFA is a news/opinion article about this Newsday article.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Cops powerless against teenage girls.
I think I can see why they needed to arrest someone...
Blank until
Honestly? I wouldn't be surprised.
This is just a spun story courtesy of twitter's marketing dept. I call BS.
Yes, of course. The police force is an incredibly smart and ingenious organization purporting a huge conspiracy that knows everything about everyone. And they are also insanely stupid at the same time. ;)
Who's to say the crowd, in danger according to this article, would read and take advice from Twitter? Besides, when a crowd like that endangers itself, all we can hope for is that they kill each other off with their immense stupidity. To them I say, get a life, and then don't endanger it out of infatuation.
and read his rights, after they told him he had the right to remain silent did they tell him he had the right to irony?
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
What if he doesn't use twitter? Do they expect him to make an account, get everyone in the crowd to subscribe (assuming they don't have some massive aversion to it like my self and refuse to go) and then update the twitter telling everyone to beat it? This also some how assumes every single person in the crowd has some mobile twitter solution configured as well which is entirely ignorant. If the law officers don't understand anything even a little they shouldn't be allowed to take actions based on their ignorance. Thus they should be relieved of their duties as they cant possibly do their job by making such obtuse assumptions. What the hell is this? The dark ages?
The fact that he was promoting the event on Twitter, even after it was canceled (making a bad situation worse), might have gave the police an inkling.
The timing is absolutely perfect, too: http://dilbert.com/fast/2009-11-24/
Presumes those that have a mobile twitter solution would respond to it during a riot, too.
"No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up." -- Lily Tomlin
This fellow will not be convicted and the cops will be sued. The law tells people what they can not do. With rare exceptions it does not compel people to act. For example if a person is under a doctor's care then the doctor may be taken to task. But a random person has no obligation at all to help a drowning man or even to let others know that there is a man drowning. Unless this fellow owned the space in which this problem occurred he has no relationship to the issue at all. Cops often are sadly under educated and this is a prime example of cops crossing the line. Crowd control is the cops' responsibility and not a public speakers. Cops have numerous ways of controlling crowds. If they were too lazy or too stupid then they need to be fired.
Really, are 3,000 teenage girls too much for the police to handle?
I honestly and sincerely hope so.
As libertarians have continually pointed out we are headed towards a police state. There is no difference between Republicrat and Democan as they are both pushing us towards that goal; so anyone who voted for either and will continue to vote for either have no room to complain since they are for an intrusive, activist government so they should shut up and go sit on the sidelines. YOU ASKED FOR IT!
-Bob
Can you even handle 1? What would you rather they do, shoot them? Wade into them with batons swinging? Start a line to ride the lightning (taser).
New World Order.
Yours In Baikonur,
Kilgore Trout
He does use twitter, and everyone in the crowd (to a significant percentage) was already subscribing.
Again, they (to a significant percentage) did
The same should be said about slashdot commentators and reading. The missing information: He drew the crowd by using twitter, and was posting twitter updates as the cops were trying to get the crowd to disperse.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
I have yet to meet anyone who claims to tweet (shut up. I don't care that it's at the core of your life. It doesn't impinge on mine), yet there seems to be a hugely disproportionate number of articles in newspapers and on line, where 'tweeting' is a factor. Either the editors have gone mad, or the people behind tweet are well connected and have weaselled their uninteresting stories into the media somehow.
The sooner this daft fad fades away the better.
We are talking about teenage girls here.
According to TFA, some of the tweets that were sent out after having been asked to disperse the crowd caused the crowd to react immediately... one example given is that he tweeted that the kid was singing, which caused the crowd to try to storm the barricades.
Besides which, if even one person reads the tweet, then it'll cause a ripple effect. They read it, they announce it's over, show the tweet to people around them, and leave. Before long, others will check just to make sure it's the real deal, and the message will pass from there.
This doesn't even make sense. Unless they lugged their laptops along and have a Wi-Fi connection, the members of the crowd are probably not sitting at a computer monitoring Twitter.
Wrong. First, speak to the article:
He did tweet. He tweeted twice.
Had he not tweeted, it still wasn't his responsibility. If the crowd needs to be dispersed, it is the responsibility of the police to notify people.
Oh, for the record:
IAAFLEO
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
Let's face it - the whole thing was a PR exercise. Big crowd - might make the newspapers. Unruly crowd - we're talking TV. Arrest me? We've gone from teenagers knowing this guy to his name blasted all over the internet! Can't buy that kind of PR...
Never heard of this Justin guy until this. Any publicity is good publicity... I'm sure the exec will get a bonus.
Police tell organiser to ask anyone else thinking of coming not to, organiser refuses, gets arrested for making a dangerous situation worse. Seems kinda reasonable once you get past the ridiculously OTT OP.
> The same should be said about slashdot commentators and reading. The missing information:
> He drew the crowd by using twitter, and was posting twitter updates as the cops were trying
> to get the crowd to disperse.
OK then... provide us a list of those tweets?
Who sent them. What they said. When they were sent.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I am a friendly law enforcement officer ?
Well, maybe you could substitute something else for the, er, f-word...
(I was thinking of "Federal", of course!)
If you READ the article you would know that he DID use twitter, to get even MORE people to come, RATHER then telling them to go away and/or not come anymore.
I am afraid that there is a clear case here. The police had asked that the event be cancelled and had asked for a message to be sent on the same channel that people had been invited, that people be told to leave or not come in the first place.
If a radio station was to announce an event on the radio asking for visitors to said radio station, then to many people show up and for everyones safety the event needs to be cancelled so fewer people will be there, is it unreasonable to ask the station to sent the message over the radio? No, that has been done and almost everyone would cooperate with such a request. Only a true asshole would FOR A PUBLICITY event, not cooperate with the police when things got out of control.
This was NOT a protest march, not a political rally or anything of the sort. For commercial gains someone endangered public safety and refused to help the police with trying to bring the situation under control.
Liberatarian nutcases on /. may scream bloody murder over this, but those of us with a brain can see what is going on because we can actually read articles before our brain shutsdown at the mere mention of the police.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
!freedom
!responsibleforself
apparentlyresponsibleforothers
next!
Well, I don't know the case law, but I doubt mere non-cooperation constitutes "interference". He didn't prevent the cops from doing something, he just refused to help.
Also, I'd love to know how that bit about dangerous animals ended up in the statute. I suspect there's a bit of history there.
Anything you tweet can, and will, be used against you!
Sounds much closer to a obstruct police case to me. He refused to help, and hindered police. In Canada that's the equivalent to a felony.
Om, nomnomnom...
Let's see... Now I can get arrested for both shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater and for not shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Man, this country's going to hell in an express hand basket.
One "Aw, Shit!" is worth 100 "Ata boys!"
so what I'm reading here is that the authorities are now trying to use the intarweb for controling the people, which is the exact oposite of what the internet (imho) is all about...
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
The title says it all, feels like /. editors are boldly crossing into Troll-landia.
There are other parties besides the Libertarians who are against a police state. It's about damn time we end this three-party system!
It should read: "Man arrested for being a twat"
a lot of people are definitely getting the government they deserve. too bad it sucks for the rest of us who still believe in the constitution
As libertarians have continually pointed out we are headed towards a police state.
You would prefer the headline 600 Die In Iroquois Theater Fire?
When exits are jammed, when crowd control fails, people die. Wal-Mart worker dies in rush; two killed at toy store
Have you watched the video? Did you see how PACKED it was?
Yes. It was also remarkably orderly for having that many people together. Did you see the teenagers all around laughing and checking their phones? Sure, there was some shoving around, but that happens in ANY crowd. You've got to move when the herd moves.
I've been to a Michael Jackson show, back in the Dangerous tour. THAT was an unruly crowd, and you can bet that it was well organized. When you have a lot of people together, there are certain unavoidable circumstances. Doesn't mean that people shouldn't be there. If you don't want to take the risk, you don't go. Everyone there should be aware of the risk of being in a large crowd, and if accidents happen, they happen. The police should have no right to disperse them, prevent the singer from going in, and most DEFINITELY don't have the right to force someone to say something against his will.
Perhaps charge the organizer with second degree manslaughter after someone is killed, but if nobody is killed, then no crime has been committed
Building a large building with no fire exits should be completely fine if there won't be a fire but if a fire does happen years later, it's suddenly a crime comparable to dozens of murders?
In a civilized world, defining crimes has to be about what you did and what your intentions were at the time. If you do something that causes a large risk to people, that action alone either is or is not a crime, not depending on the blind luck of whether it just happens to cause damage or not.
If two people both do A (which has a high risk of causing bad consequence B) in exactly identical manner and with same intentions, it doesn't make any sense to convict one of the people of B because B happened when he did A and then let the other one go free just because B didn't happen. They should both be convicted of causing a high risk of B.
juts curious about precedent
Tweeet! Tweeeeeeet!!
Mod Me Up. You'll make a grown man cry.
I hope the judge throws the book at those cops. Seriously, you can't force someone to do something...
it's called free speech (or lack of). So if someone has chosen to remain silent, then that is their right.
The cops in this case had lost control of the crowd (their fault) first of all for letting the situation get out of hand, and then to rely on someone else to regain that control is even more pathetic on their part. Then to top it all off, showing their full incompetence, they arrest the guy for not wanting to do their job for them....because they had no control over him either, they decided "we'll show him who is boos" and slapped the cuffs on him.
My god....we have noobs for cops now.
Why stop there then? Why not go arrest someone just for the sake of being famous? After all a famous celebrity shopping could lead to a riot and possibly numerous deaths. Hell why not ban everything and arrest everyone? Constitution be damned as it is a god damned piece of paper according to the republicrats and democans. After all, it itself could lead to death and suffering.
My take is stick with the constitution and the wise words of America's Founding Fathers. One statement comes to mind "He who would give up a small essential freedom for a little temporary security is a scoundrel, and deserves neither freedom nor security." and this applies to this situation and the other two you mentioned.
-Bob
so what I'm reading here is that the authorities are now trying to use the intarweb for controling the people, which is the exact oposite of what the internet (imho) is all about...
Christ. Use your common sense. Here is how it probably went down:
Cops: "The event is canceled, please go home."
Teeny Girl: "No it's not, I got this tweet to prove it! Look here...the event is still on!"
Cops: "Huh? Who keeps sending this stuff? Oh, its the organizer."
Cops to Record Exec: "Please stop you are causing a riot. The event is canceled."
Record Exec: "No."
Cops to Record Exec: "Really, this is out of hand and these mindless kids don't believe us. Tell them the event is canceled."
Record Exec: "No"
The rest of the rational world about the exec: "What an irresponsible jackass."
Sure
Your ad here. Ask me how!