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.'"
So what are you basically saying?
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?
The enemy of your enemy is not your friend.
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
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.
obstructing government administration
Wow. The fact that you can even be charged for something as vague and open to interpretation as that is scary regardless of the context.
The guy continued to send out tweets that he was signing autographs after the giant crowd dispersed. He was being an asshole and a danger to public safety to satisfy his Internet ego. Does that make what the cops did right? I dunno. But it does make him a douche.
-The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
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.
What if he doesn't use twitter?
Do you honestly think they would have asked that of him if he didn't?
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...
What gives the police the right to compel a person to say or do anything?
The way I see it, the police know this exec is going to walk away with a clean record- after all, he's done nothing wrong. The consequence of this mess is that the average person will be more likely to comply when an illegal demand is made by the police, because the average person can't afford the same legal representation as a corporate executive.
Agreed. The crowd was out of hand before the record folks even showed up. The mall security, and the local authorities failed, and then decided to blame someone else for it.
The next thing is: In the article, it appeared that most of the attendees were tween girls... And there were plenty of references to parents being there too. One reference even said that a mother, father and daughter "camped out" so they could be near the front. They also fail. As adults, be freaking civil, you're supposed to be examples. I'm willing to bet that a lot of the fighting was between the adults...
What gives the police the right to compel a person to say or do anything?
After seeing a video from there I'm not against this anymore. Teenage girls, sigh.
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.
I am of the opinion that laws should at least attempted to be written in such a way that they are parseable and understandable by mere mortals. I understand the need for unambiguous legalese, but in this case the title of the law is clearly misleading.
Anyway, looking at the law itself, I do not see how it applies here:
A person is guilty of obstructing governmental administration when he intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from performing an official function...
Okay, now the specific conditions follow:
by means of intimidation, physical force or interference
Doesn't apply.
by means of any independently unlawful act
Doesn't apply.
by means of interfering, whether or not physical force is involved, with radio, telephone, television or other telecommunications systems owned or operated by the state, or a county, city, town, village, fire district or emergency medical service
Doesn't apply.
by means of releasing a dangerous animal under circumstances evincing the actor's intent that the animal obstruct governmental administration.
Doesn't apply. In fact, it is perfectly clear and obvious to any sane person - which should, presumably, include police (I sure hope they're sane when on duty!) - that none of those points can apply to this man. I'm not sure, perhaps what he did is indeed grounds for arrest under the laws as written, just not this one.
Incorrect. Even if he were arrested, he could simply inform the officers of his desire to remain silent, and to speak to his attorney. The police cannot force him to say/Tweet anything. It is the police department's job to keep the peace, not this executive's.
> Wow. The fact that you can even be charged for something as vague and open to interpretation as that is scary
> regardless of the context.
Actually... you can be CHARGED for almost anything.
One of the facts overlooked in the Henry Gates fiasco was that.... he never broke the law, yet he was arrested.
Its true, MA courts have ruled pretty decisively AGAINST the interpretation of "disturbing the peace" that would have allowed for him to be convicted. Over 20 years ago there was a case of a man who was told by police to leave the scene, refused. Not only refused by yelled at the officer, and gesticulated wildly with his arms while doing so.
The courts ruled that nothing that he did, not gesticulating wildly (since it was not threatening motion, just wild passionate gesture), not refusing to leave the scene, not yelling, not because a crowd gathered. NONE of the behavior that was WELL BEYOND what Mr Gates did... NONE of it was enough to find him guilty.
There have been several cases since then, all the same result.
So the question, in my mind, becomes... where does the responsibility lie on the police side to actually know the law and legal precident and to apply it correctly? Shouldn't such public behavior laws be something the police know about and know how to enforce? SHouldn't they be required to at least attempt to apply the law correctly?
Apparently the official answer is: No they shouldn't.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Because the subject is only spot on if you don't ready the article and are totally ignorant of the facts in the case. He purposefully drew a huge crowd with no crowd control in place and then refused to tell the crowd to disperse (using twitter or by yelling or by anything) when the police showed up to deal with the dangerous, uncontrolled crowd. In fact, he kept sending tweets out about the event even as the police were trying to deal with the crowd. The only thing that courts might have to decide is if the police can compel you to say something for the public safety (the 1st amendment doesn't protect your right to say things that endanger the public, so I don't see why they shouldn't be able to force you to tell a dangerous crowd to disperse).
With a lawful order, yes. What they demanded of him was not something that they could lawfully demand him to do.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
I woudl guess they're applying the first condition (by means of intimidation, physical force or interference). Specifically, they're probably saying that his refusal to cooperate constituted interference with their attempt to perform their duties.
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.
You're obliged to comply with a lawful order: true
You're obliged to order others to comply with a lawful order (specifically wrt communications): false
The due process clause of th 14th amendment makes it clear that the 1st amendment applies to state and local government (which includes the police). Freedom of speech equally means you can't be ordered to say something. They can order you to leave. They can't order you to tell others to leave.
But "Tell them to leave" is not a lawful order from a police officer. The police do not have the legal authority to order you to say anything. They can ask you to, just like they can ask you to let them search your house, or ask you to confess to a crime, but that's not an order.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
You are incorrect. The 5th amendment guaranties you the right to not be forced to incriminate your self. The Officer was asking him to peacefully disperse a mob that he had caused to gather. This is not only a lawful request but a prudent one. The use of twitter is of no consequence except that it was the mobs chosen means of communication. It would have been the same if they were all using hand held radios.
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
You're obligated to comply with a lawful order from a police officer. Failing to do so is unlawful. So if the cop says,"tell them to leave [because you've created a dangerous situation by being here]" you'd better comply, or you'll get sent down. Just because they told him to do it with twitter makes no difference.
Wow, what country do you live in? Mine has a constitution with due process protection, freedom of speech, and other useful constraints on government to prevent them from just ordering me to do things like that.
(the 1st amendment doesn't protect your right to say things that endanger the public, so I don't see why they shouldn't be able to force you to tell a dangerous crowd to disperse).
And the 1st amendment doesn't protect your right to say things that classify as libel/slander, so I don't see why the cops shouldn't be able to force you to say good things about specific people/companies.
So, you think that he should admit that he caused [a mob] to gather (that is, incited a riot) by trying to get them to disperse?
Thanks, but I'll be talking to my attorney first.
http://www.donarmstrong.com
In all fairness, the first sentence was meaningful, and I suppose he deserves a bit of credit for being the first one to say what was one everyone's minds after reading the summary. But then the rest was fluff.
The police have to do what they have to do at the time to maintain order. Sometimes police have to act quickly to prevent a situation escalating out of control. Sometimes there isn't enough time for police to look up all the revelvant law books, have a quick debate amongst themselves about the interperetation of the law, and then decide whether or not the person in question would be convicted by a jury of their peers.
Sometimes, they just act and society rolls on, and then the whole mess is sorted out by the courts.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
First, he DID cause the mob to gather. He was hosting a concert. He did not, however, ask the mob to become unruly.
Second, asking someone to refrain from committing a crime is not akin to admitting that you caused them to start committing a crime. If that were the case, then asking someone to stop raping you would be an admission that you wanted to have sex with them in the first place. It doesn't make much sense, does it?
But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
The fact that it's in the immediate interest of public safety. Watch the video from TFA; it looks like the event was far larger than anticipated, with completely inadequate crowd control. People were being shoved by the crowd through doors and down stairs. Mobs of people like this can easily knock someone down and trample them to death; it happens when there are fires in crowded space, or even when people are excited about being let into Wal-Mart on Black Friday. As the event had been announced through twitter, and the vast majority of the crowd was teenage girls with cell phones, so the hope was probably that getting a message from the official Twitter account itself would help disperse the crowd a lot better than the single cop getting up there with the megaphone, causing the crowd to just get angry.
When there's an immediate threat to life and health, compelling someone to make an announcement to disperse the crowd is an entirely reasonable thing to do. This is essentially the same case as that of calling "fire" in a crowded theater; inducing a panic in a confined space can cost lives, and likewise refusing to cooperate in trying to disperse a mob can cost lives as well.
[Citation or car analogy needed]
I do realize what the 5th amendment states, thank you. However, this does not change the fact that it was not the responsibility of the record executive to Tweet that the crowd should leave. If the police wanted to disperse the crowd, they should have taken appropriate steps (i.e. called for backup, used bullhorns/public address, set up barricades, etc etc).
Regarding your assertion that the executive was required by law to comply, I will reply with the much overused "Citation Please".
[citation needed]
I see lots of replies like "you are incorrect" and "you are correct" but I would really like someone who knows to clarify this. I wasn't aware that police officers could order you to do anything other than to submit for arrest. What is a "lawful order?" Is it an order telling you to do something lawful? If so, then "dance" and "give me all the money in your pocket" are lawful orders. Or does the term mean that there is a specific set of things that are lawful for the officer to order you to do?
This, I don't understand, at all. Peacefully disperse a mob? Isn't that their job?
Heck, why not arrest the members of said mob rather than arrest the target of the mob's attention? Shit, if the mob switched targets to the police, by this logic, aren't the police compelled to arrest themselves if they can't "peacefully disperse" said mob?
"There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
It doesn't make a whole lot of sense that a mob of sentient individuals cannot be held responsible for forming up into a mob and directly causing a nuisance while the target of their attention can be arrested for simply being present.
"There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
not in a country where you have to pay your own legal fees for criminal defence, it isn't. The costs of fighting off a baseless charge for a petty offence probably exceed the cost of pleading guilty.
FGD 135
So this would be like, the cops desregarded his right to not shouting "there's no fire!" in a crowded theater?
This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
The 1st amendment doesn't protect your right to say some things, but this is about NOT saying something. Completely different problem.
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.
No, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy's enemy. He may well also be your enemy.
Consider a scene from WWII. Finland. The Nazi's are supporting the valiant Finns against the Russian invader. The US is as war with the Nazi's and a (weak) ally of both Finland and Russia. Who's our friend here? Well, the Finns are. Anyone else?
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The only thing that courts might have to decide is if the police can compel you to say something for the public safety (the 1st amendment doesn't protect your right to say things that endanger the public, so I don't see why they shouldn't be able to force you to tell a dangerous crowd to disperse).
Actually, the first amendment should also prevent the government from coercing someone to speak; while in this case it may be "a good idea to make him say something" that's a slippry slope to head down. Of course, he should be liable (civilly and criminally) if he was resposnible for creating the conditions that resulted in teh problems. But that is different from being arrested and charged for refusing to speak.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
The cops suffer from Power Trip-itis, and will just arrest you for anything they can make stick. Even if the unfairly arrested citizen gets arrested tomorrow morning, the cops still are proud of themselves for having "put that citizen in his place". It boosts their ego.
And like I said below, when a judge or other official declares the citizens falsely arrested, then the cop should have to spend equal time in jail as punishment. Maybe if cops spent more nights in jail, thus being inconvenienced, they'll be more inclined to think twice or thrice before arresting people who have done nothing wrong.
BTW:
The reason I'm so annoyed with cops is because I was stopped in Texas while on a cross-country trip. They wanted to search my trunk. I refused because they had no warrant or probable cause. The power trippin' cops made me stand around for an hour in the cold night air until they finally let me go. Assholes.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
In the early 80's, the enemy of our enemy Ayatollah Khomeini was our friend Saddam Hussein. In the late 80's, the enemy of our enemy the Soviet Union was our friend Osama bin Laden.