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.'"

Comments

Re:Decisions, decisions...

[snspdaarf]

The enemy of your enemy is not your friend.

Posters here are like the teens in the vid

[Puls4r]

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.

Re:Posters here are like the teens in the vid

[DavidTC]

'The police' aren't focused on it. The media are.

This guy got arrested because he set up an event he knew would draw huge crowds, it did, he was in charge of the crowd, and he has no safety measures and wouldn't tell them to disperse. (Via any means.)

Sorry, despite freedom of speech and assembly, people don't have the right to set up giant panicky dangerous packed mob. You want to address a huge crowd, you put it somewhere a huge crowd can fit, with actual crowd control measures.

WRT to the twitting, it's likely the police were asking him to get people to stop showing up, not asking the existing crowd to do anything.

Re:Ahh Slashdot

[shutdown -p now]

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.

Re:How would that work

[roguetrick]

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.

Re:How would that work

[dintlu]

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.

Re:Now this is just Stupidity at its finest

[lorenlal]

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...

Re:Ahh Slashdot

[shutdown -p now]

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.

Re:Ahh Slashdot

[TheCarp]

> 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

Re:Sounds like an open-and-shut false-arrest case.

[MozeeToby]

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).

Re:How would that work

[tomhudson]

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.

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.

Re:How would that work

[tverbeek]

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.

Re:How would that work

[KC7JHO]

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.

Re:Sounds like an open-and-shut false-arrest case.

[ElKry]

(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.

Re:How would that work

[dondelelcaro]

The Officer was asking him to peacefully disperse a mob that he had caused to gather.

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.

Re:How would that work

[Critical Facilities]

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".