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:How would that work

[Anonymous Coward]

So what are you basically saying?

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

[John Hasler]

n/t

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

[just_another_sean]

Troll? Did somebody hit the wrong button or what? Subject is spot on!

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

[ArhcAngel]

I believe it was the "n/t" that merited the Troll mod. I know I was incensed.

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

[JStegmaier]

Subject is spot on!

Unless you actual read anything at all about the event. The guy was tweeting about the event still being on, even after it was canceled (in order to draw even more people in to an already bad situation), so the officers asked him tweet again to tell those who had seen his tweets before that it was actually canceled... That's not the main reason he was arrested, but it contributed.

By the way, anyone who actually think the headlines or summaries on Slashdot are even remotely accurate, as you and the GP seem to, is definitely new here.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

so I don't see why they shouldn't be able to force you to tell a dangerous crowd to disperse

1) Freedom of speech applies as much to what you say as to what you don't say
2) Whilst yelling 'fire' in a public place (eg a theater) is endangering the public, not yelling fire when their isn't a fire is not. It is a long held doctrine that the police DO NOT have to protect you. If those charged 'to serve and protect' are not legally obligated to do so, how can a non-police person be expected to do something for the public safety?

If the police can show that he was deliberately egging the crowd on, they can pin incitement to riot on him. Otherwise all they can accuse him of is being a jackass who doesn't care about other's safety. This is not a crime.

Or to put on your terms:
Good Samaritan laws don't protect you when you purposefully hurt an injured person, so I don't see why they shouldn't be able to force you to give an injured person medical care when an incompetent is already doing it.

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

[commodore64_love]

>>>(the 1st amendment doesn't protect your right to say things that endanger the public

Too bad the United States Supreme Court disagrees with you. You can say anything upto the point of riot, but if the crowd is not rioting then your innate, natural, and inalienable right to free speech will be protected by the government.

Also it's not as if this was the first case of police acting like tyrants, instead of taxpayer employees:
- there's the famous Professor Gates where he was arrested in his own house; okay he acted like a loud-mouthed jerk but that is right (free speech)
- there's the fellow that was barred from traveling from St.Louis to Arlington Virginia because he had $4000 cash (not illegal)
- there's the guy who was stopped in the middle of Arizona, forced to open his trunk, he refused, so they drug him out and beat him
- and then there's case-after-case-after-case where people were arrested for using a camera in a public sidewalk

Anyway I'll let you do your own google search, but here's just some quick links: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUzd7G875Hc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMB6L487LHM http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=arrested+for+taping+police&search_type=&aq=f The U.S. Police are turning into a modern variant of the Roman Legionnaire that spread terror throughout the empire.

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

[selven]

The 1st amendment doesn't protect your right to say some things, but this is about NOT saying something. Completely different problem.

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

[thickdiick]

The fifth protects one's right to not incriminate oneself. Stop thinking about me and pay attention in class!

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

[Pyrion]

The only thing that courts might have to decide is if the police can compel you to say something for the public safety

In effect, compelling someone to do the job of a police officer? Ensuring the safety of the public is, after all, their job.

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

[misexistentialist]

I think you could say that he incited the riot with his tweets. The cops gave him a chance to fix things if it was an accident/stupidity, but his refusal indicated that he was deliberately inciting the riot for the sole purpose of creating mayhem and disorder. Kind of like blurting out "fire" in a movie theater to encourage the actors onscreen to fire their weapons, and then when the audience starts standing, enjoying the chaos and saying nothing or even yelling it louder

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

[commodore64_love]

Troll? Really? I thought it was rather informative myself. Next I suppose you're going to tell me I'm not allowed to post this document:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..... The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."

"...has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures."
"...has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
"...has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance."

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

[shutdown -p now]

Then why didn't they arrest him for inciting the riot (look up the charges in TFA)?

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

[dcollins]

Last I checked: You have a right to remain silent.

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

[Romancer]

From the article:

Slightly confusing, because Bieber's Twitter account-presumably the one the cops wanted Roppo to use-does indeed show that he asked his fans to leave

at 4:30 pm Eastern:
"They are not allowing me to come into the mall. If you don't leave I and my fans will be arrested the police just told us.

And then:
"The event at Roosevelt Mall is canceled. Please go home. The police have already arrested one person from my camp. I don't want anyone hurt.

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

[BigDXLT]

Anyone that argues based on "facts" or has actually read the fucking article is definitely new here.

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

[selven]

It seems similar to some takedown notice cases we see. Guy puts up infringing thing on his website. Company asks nicely for him to take it down, even though the infringement was already committed. Guy doesn't take it down. Then the company sues him.

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

[shutdown -p now]

Yes, but company sues him for copyright infringement that he originally committed, not for refusal to take something down.

Even in case of a service provider hosting third-party content (where DMCA takedown procedure applies), they cannot be sued for not acting on the takedown notice. They can only be sued for copyright infringement, and refusal to act on the notice merely enables the copyright holder to sue on those grounds, and it not an illegal act in and of itself.

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

[Rorschach1]

I just happened to be reading about the Hillsborough Disaster yesterday - it seems particularly relevant here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsborough_disaster

96 people died, not because of rioting hooligans, but because of lack of effective crowd control. The stadium was under capacity, but people were crushed to death because no one was properly directing the rush of fans.

See also:

Luzhniki Disaster
Ibrox Disaster
Ellis Park Stadium Disaster
The 2009 Birmingham Millennium Point stampede

I'm pretty sure someone here has this sig:

"A person is smart; people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it."

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

[Registered Coward v2]

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.

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

[commodore64_love]

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.

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

[commodore64_love]

You still don't arrest the person who is a mere bystander. Perhaps charge the organizer with second degree manslaughter after someone is killed, but if nobody is killed, then no crime has been committed

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

[Jbabe]

I thought the joke on Slashdot was that people never actually read the articles.

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

[DJRumpy]

This is a good point, but I think that right may apply only after you've been arrested (can someone with a legal background verify?). That said, I think the cops were in the wrong with the arrest. If he was actively tweeting, to incite the crowd into malicious behavior, they would have something, but unless they could prove that someone in the crowd was in imminent harm, they have no case. They can't compel you to say something. That goes against the very basic principals of the 1st amendment. If anything, the mall was responsible for proper security, as would the local city, assuming they require permits for this very reason. Failure to plan by the Mall and the police does not make this man a criminal.

Here are the exceptions to free speech:

Special exceptions

Obscenity, defined by the Miller test by applying contemporary community standards, is one exception. It is speech to which all of the following apply: appeals to the prurient interest, depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. (This is usually applied to more hard-core forms of pornography.)

Fighting words are words or phrases that are likely to induce the listener to get in a fight. This previously applied to words like nigger, but with people getting less sensitive to words, this exception is little-used. Restrictions on hate speech have been generally overturned by the courts; such speech cannot be targeted for its content but may be targeted in other ways, if it involves speech beyond the First Amendment's protection like incitement to immediate violence or defamation.

Speech that presents imminent lawless action was originally banned under the clear and present danger test established by Schenck v. United States, but this test has since been replaced by the imminent lawless action test established in Brandenburg v. Ohio. The canonical example, enunciated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, is falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. The trend since Holmes's time has been to restrict the clear and present danger exception to apply to speech which is completely apolitical in content.

Restrictions on commercial speech, defined as speech mainly in furtherance of selling a product, is subject to a lower level of scrutiny than other speech, although recently the court has taken steps to bring it closer to parity with other speech. This is why the government can ban advertisements for cigarettes and false information on corporate prospectuses (which try to sell stock in a company).

Limits placed on libel and slander have been upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court narrowed the definition of libel with the case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell made famous in the movie The People vs. Larry Flynt.

The Government Speech Doctrine establishes that the government may censor speech when the speech is its own, leading to a number of contentious decisions on its breadth.

No where in here does it say they can compel you to say anything. In all of these cases, they can only compel silence.

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

[Urza9814]

I doubt that even matters. It seems to me that he's not being arrested for refusing to do something, he's being arrested for creating this giant mob. The police just offered to cut him a deal along the lines of 'make these people disperse and we won't arrest you'. It's like one of those movies where the police take the criminal and offer him freedom in exchange for helping them in some way. They don't arrest the guy for refusing to help them, they just don't let him go.

The only question _I_ would have is whether it's legal for the police to selectively enforce the law - i.e. 'we'll arrest you if you don't cooperate' - but I think if he had cooperated they could have just said he didn't endanger the public after all.

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

[g00bd0g]

Huh, at least they respected your rights (sort of). I was once pulled over in Santa Cruz, CA, the cop asked if he could search my car, I said no, and he proceeded to do it anyways. He found nothing. As he was about to leave I asked why he had searched my car if I had said no, he said they were only required to ask, the answer didn't matter. Man I wish I had that on tape.

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

[Paxtez]

I have no idea if this is the case, but all states don't have the same laws or breakdown of laws. Maybe in that state inciting a riot is like conspiracy to commit a crime, and all parties get charged with the event. Or maybe he just met the rules for exact wording of assault, it could be something similar to:
"A person is guilty of the offense of Assault in the Blank degree if a person:
a)blah
b)blah
or c) Intentionally or knowingly does any action which has a reasonable chance of causing bodily harm to an individual."

Or the media could have it wrong, they don't get copies of the police reports for on-going investigations, they get their information from 2nd or 3rd hand sources who are very often wrong.

Again I have no idea if any of these are the case, but it's safe to assume when you have a high profile situation like this the decision to arrest someone and what for is not being made by a random beat officer. Instead it would most likely be made by someone higher in command and someone fairly knowledgeable.

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

[Paxtez]

This is a good point, but I think that right may apply only after you've been arrested (can someone with a legal background verify?)

IANAL: Basically yes, Miranda only applies when both 1) Suspect is in custody*, 2) Suspect is being interrogated*. On TV shows when people are reading rights right when arresting is BS, officers don't need to do that unless they plan on questioning the person on the way to the station, which is a bad idea.

*: How these terms are defined varies from state to state, custody can be as little as an officer being in the room to suspect placed under arrest. Something along the lines of 'suspect not free to leave' might be a good middle-ground. Interrogated normally means something like: "being asked questions which are likely to invoke an self-incriminating response". "What is your name?", "You know Sally?", "What is your SSN?" Would normally be ok. "Did you kill bob?", "Why did you take the money?", "How much drugs do you have on you?", would be bad.

Again, all this varies widely from state to state.

No where in here does it say they can compel you to say anything. In all of these cases, they can only compel silence.

Not sure either way, but that doesn't really matter. They could be arresting him for basically inciting a riot and gave him one chance to fix it without being arrested.

Dude (to crowd): "Riot!"
Crowd: *riots*
Cop: Tell them to quit it or be arrested.
Dude (to cop): Hell no!
Cop: *arrests*

Perfectly legal and a valid arrest.
(No idea what happened, I didn't even RTFA. But most the time the 'A' doesn't know what happened either, I'm talking theory here.)

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

[AK Marc]

if nobody is killed, then no crime has been committed

and here I thought things like "reckless endangerment" were on the books as crimes...

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

[DJRumpy]

He didn't tell them anything of that sort. He just publicized via Tweet that they would be at the mall. There was no evidence of inciting a riot.

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

[Paxtez]

Yes, he basically did. He continued to publicize the event after it was lawfully shut down. Including falsely stating that Bieber was inside signing autographs after the event was canceled when Bieber never even made it inside.

"James Roppo, 44, the senior vice president of sales at Island Def Jam Records, sent out Internet messages to over 3,000 fans that Justin Bieber was signing autographs even after police dispersed the crowd, cops said."

""They are not allowing me to come into the mall. if you dont leave I and my fans will be arrested as the police just told us," Bieber tweeted."

(emphasis mine)
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/11/21/2009-11-21_island_def_jam_records_exec_.html#ixzz0Xq2XpBMl

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

[DJRumpy]

Your own quotes answer the question. He was publicizing an event in the first tweets. He warned everyone to leave once the police told him they would start arresting people.

How do you equate that with inciting a riot?

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

[FiloEleven]

Ah, thanks, I was looking for another roll of TP.

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

[ElKry]

First, you can go ahead and sleep soundly, safe in the knowledge that I can't vote in your country.

Second, it frightens me that people like you, people unable to see that I was drawing a parallel between his statemen and mine to show how his point of view was wrong by reductio ad absurdum, can vote in any country whatsoever.

The fact that you thought I actually meant literally what I said boggles the mind.

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

[rrvau]

Jeez, why couldn't "The Filth" send a tweet in his name? Wouldn't think it would be too hard. Coppers just have to beat his access data out of him, what? RRV - Retired Crim

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

[commodore64_love]

>>>(the 1st amendment doesn't protect your right to say things that endanger the public

Too bad the United States Supreme Court disagrees with you. You can say anything upto the point of riot, but if the crowd is not rioting then your innate, natural, and inalienable right to free speech will be protected by the government. It's how people like MLK Junior were able to give speeches in the open, instead of from a jail, even though he was often falsely-accused of spreading violence everywhere he went. His right of free speech protected him.

Also it's not as if this was the first case of police acting like tyrants, instead of taxpayer employees:
- there's the famous Professor Gates where he was arrested in his own house; okay he acted like a loud-mouthed jerk but that is right (free speech)
- there's the fellow that was barred from traveling from St.Louis to Arlington Virginia because he had $4000 cash (not illegal)
- there's the guy who was stopped in the middle of Arizona, forced to open his trunk, he refused, so they drug him out and beat him
- and then there's case-after-case-after-case where people were arrested for using a camera in a public sidewalk

Anyway I'll let you do your own google search, but here's just some quick links: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUzd7G875Hc [youtube.com] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMB6L487LHM [youtube.com] http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=arrested+for+taping+police&search_type=&aq=f [youtube.com] The U.S. Police are turning into a modern variant of the Roman Legionnaire that spread terror throughout the empire.
--

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

[commodore64_love]

How can there be a crime if there are no victims?

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

[AK Marc]

How can there be a crime if there are no victims?

That's a non sequitur. You don't have to have a dead body to have a victim, and the person I responded to said there had to be dead bodies for there to be a crime. Unless you are stating that kidnapping, assault and rape aren't crimes, your comment isn't related to mine.

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

[operagost]

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).

Because they don't explicitly have that power?

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

[operagost]

That's because the lone positive provision of the DMCA requires that a takedown notice be sent before taking legal action.

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

[AliasMarlowe]

Your own quotes answer the question. He was publicizing an event in the first tweets. He warned everyone to leave once the police told him they would start arresting people.

Try reading the quotes again. They refer to different people:

"James Roppo, 44, the senior vice president of sales at Island Def Jam Records, sent out Internet messages to over 3,000 fans that Justin Bieber was signing autographs even after police dispersed the crowd, cops said."

""They are not allowing me to come into the mall. if you dont leave I and my fans will be arrested as the police just told us," Bieber tweeted."

The first refers to messages sent by James Roppo, who was arrested. The second refers to a tweet by Justin Bieber.

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

[clone53421]

Are you trolling? Or are you ignorant of the law?

Disorderly conduct, look it up. You do NOT have the right to infringe on other people’s rights, and one of the things that has been legally protected is the right to some reasonable degree of peace and quiet.

But hey, feel like a martyr, I don’t care. Quit bitching and do something. Start pumping your music at 120 dB at 3:00 AM and then you can experience firsthand what it’s like to be repressed. Your neighbours will call the cops; of course you must refuse to turn the music down because OMG you have the right to do whatever the fuck you want! So The Man arrests you! OMG so repressed!

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

[Wire Head]

"Submission: Canadian police arrest man for refusing to Tweet by RichZellich (948451)"
                    ^^^^^^^^^

1st Amendment (FAIL)

Canada, despite popular belief, is not one of the United States.

Cop, arrest thyself!

[Citizen of Earth]

Sounds like the cops need to arrest themselves. How do they think the crowd will react to something like this?

Re:Cop, arrest thyself!

[polar red]

How do they think the crowd will react to something like this?

lay an egg ?

Re:Cop, arrest thyself!

[xOneca]

A boiled egg.

Re:Cop, arrest thyself!

[dmmiller2k]

How do they think the crowd will react to something like this?

Did they really expect a mob to respond to a tweet during a riot?

Decisions, decisions...

[bbbaldie]

Do I side with the Fascist cops or the Nazi record exec?

Re:Decisions, decisions...

[snspdaarf]

The enemy of your enemy is not your friend.

Re:Decisions, decisions...

[Afforess]

The enemy of your enemy is your ally.

Re:Decisions, decisions...

[xOneca]

The enemy of your enemy is you.

Re:Decisions, decisions...

[Anonymous Coward]

The enemy of your enemy is your ally.

Really? 'Cause this one time I was stomping the Zerg and the Terrans showed up and destroyed my base.

Re:Decisions, decisions...

[peater]

[Citation or car analogy needed]

Re:Decisions, decisions...

[dimer0]

Jim is my enemy. But Jim is also his own worst enemy. And the enemy of my enemy is my friend. So, Jim is actually my friend.

But...

Since Jim is his own worst enemy, the enemy of my friend is my enemy. So Jim is actually my enemy.

But...

Re:Decisions, decisions...

[clone53421]

That depends on how you define “play”.

Re:Decisions, decisions...

[commodore64_love]

>>>Do I side with the Fascist cops or the Nazi record exec?

Well since the government has the power to throw you in jail, draft you into the army and send you to your death (Vietnam/Afghanistan), and suck money directly from your paycheck..... and the record exec does not..... I side with the lesser of the two evils.

Besides even if I don't like someone, I will still demand their individual rights be respected. People have rights. Governments do not; governments are servants of the People. The government should get down on its knees and Thank the People for allowing it to exist, rather than abolishing it completely.

Re:Decisions, decisions...

[ZarathustraDK]

Jim called the other day, he said he now partakes in sadomasochism and that he has developed multiple personality disorder.

Safe to say he's confused about the antagonistic aspect of his life, and would like advice.

Re:Decisions, decisions...

[ArsonSmith]

It's like if a Prius and a Hummer got in a collision.

Do you fell for the arrogant Hummer driver or the pretentious Prius driver

Re:Decisions, decisions...

[HiThere]

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?

Re:Decisions, decisions...

[ArsonSmith]

Don't they all?

Re:Decisions, decisions...

[Narpak]

The enemy of your enemy is not your friend.

The enemy of my enemy is someone I should though fiendish machinations and plots encourage to attack my enemy. Then when they are both severely weakened I will gloat from afar through some sort of remote viewing device while I activate the absolutely certainly deadly virus I have created! EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!

Re:Decisions, decisions...

[StikyPad]

Is it your frenemy?

Re:Decisions, decisions...

[dcollins]

But what if I'm my own worst enemy?

Re:Decisions, decisions...

[masmullin]

Its like if your car wont start and you kick your car, you are the enemy of the car.

Re:Decisions, decisions...

[volpe]

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.

Re:Decisions, decisions...

[ScoLgo]

And also on how you define "come".

Re:Decisions, decisions...

[CrimsonAvenger]

Well since the government has the power to throw you in jail, draft you into the army and send you to your death (Vietnam/Afghanistan),

Umm, no. No draft in the USA. Hasn't been one in better than 30 years.

Yes, yes, I know, all you young whippersnappers have to register for one (actually, pretty much everyone older than me and younger than me has to register, I carefully chose my birth year so that I'd be among the small set of American men who never had to register for the draft). But unless your friends the Democrats vote one in (as they threatened to do repeatedly during Bush's terms, for reasons that aren't terribly clear), there isn't one.

Re:Decisions, decisions...

[StuartHankins]

I wish you were wrong.

We never learn, do we?

Re:Decisions, decisions...

[FiloEleven]

The government should get down on its knees and Thank the People for allowing it to exist, rather than abolishing it completely.

In theory. But that requires that the people assert their authority, which ain't happening so often these days. And I don't mean with guns either, not unless or until they're needed. Four boxes and all that.

Re:Decisions, decisions...

[Fotograf]

Your enemy is her's Ron Jeremy then

Re:Decisions, decisions...

[tehcyder]

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?

So, the friend (Finn) of your enemy (Nazi) is your friend (Finn) even though the enemy (Russia) of your friend (Finn) is your friend (Russia)?

Re:Decisions, decisions...

[commodore64_love]

The government can reinstate the draft tomorrow and send you to Afghanistan or some other hellhole if it wanted. The power is there, which was my point. A record exec doesn't have that power.

Re:Decisions, decisions...

[CrimsonAvenger]

The government can reinstate the draft tomorrow and send you to Afghanistan or some other hellhole if it wanted.

Theoretically, yes. Practically, no.

If an attempt were made to re-institute the Draft outside a major war, the congresscritters would all look at the screaming mob that elected them last time around, realize that a "For" vote on the Draft would be the same as "I always planned to retire after this term", and vote "Against"....

Re:Decisions, decisions...

[clone53421]

If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.

...and a chaingun?

Now that sounds like my idea of heaven. Do I get more copies of Windows ME when I run out?

Ahh Slashdot

[George Beech]

He was not arrested for "felony assault" he was arrested for, and i quote TFA:

He was in custody Friday night, pending charges that could include criminal nuisance, endangering the welfare of a minor and obstructing government administration, Smith said.

And no i'm not new here.

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:Ahh Slashdot

[endianx]

How can you be charged with obstructing government administration when government administration's purpose is seemingly to obstruct. Sounds anti-competitive to me.

Re:Ahh Slashdot

[Chibinium]

We're talking about China, right?

Re:Ahh Slashdot

[Reckless Visionary]

Your point would make sense if it were at all true that the common description of the law had any legal weight outside of the actual text of the law and the applicable case law. That you can call something the "Was Being Bad" law doesn't mean that's what legal standard is applied by judge or jury. Presumably this description is applicable in New York:

http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN0195.05_195.05.html

A reasonable person may disagree with the law or it's exact wording (we are "free" to do so), but don't imply that the title of the law somehow proves a vague catch-all conspiracy.

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

[GryMor]

If thats what he was charged with, I don't see how it could have anything to do with twitter (especially from his account), as it is not "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".

Unless of course him tweeting is "a public servant from performing an official function", which doesn't seem to be the case since it would a) be the exec acting, who is not a public servant and b) tweeting is not an official function.

IANAL TINLA

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:Ahh Slashdot

[mea37]

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.

Re:Ahh Slashdot

[greg_barton]

Yes you are.

Get off my lawn.

Re:Ahh Slashdot

[SlashDotDotDot]

by means of releasing a dangerous animal under circumstances evincing the actor's intent that the animal obstruct governmental administration.

Doesn't apply.

Are you kidding? The man released Justin Bieber into a mall. Has a more dangerous animal ever been released into a more governmental structure?

Re:Ahh Slashdot

[GooberToo]

by means of any independently unlawful act

Doesn't apply.

Wrong. Failure to comply with a lawful order of a police officer is, by definition, "independently unlawful", within the great context.

Re:Ahh Slashdot

[SleazyRidr]

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.

Re:Ahh Slashdot

[thickdiick]

A person is guilty of obstructing governmental administration when he [...] prevents [...] a public servant from performing an official function, by means of intimidation, physical force or interference, or by means of any independently unlawful act

Refusing to publish something under your name is not an independently unlawful act. What we have here is an abuse of power on the part of the police. It's akin to the abuse of police power when they use tasers NOT in self-defense, but to elicit compliance from the subject. In no way do i exaggerate when i look at what this country has become and think, "The horror! The horror!"

Re:Ahh Slashdot

[Ares]

ahh. another four-digit user.

Re:Ahh Slashdot

[Anonymous Cowpat]

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.

Re:Ahh Slashdot

[Pyrion]

But they're not even attempting to perform their duties in the first place! It's their job to convince the mob to remain peaceful or peacefully disperse, not his. What they opted to do instead was dump their responsibility in his lap and then arrest him for not doing their job.

Re:Ahh Slashdot

[Pyrion]

And how is it at all lawful to compel someone into doing the job of a police officer?

Re:Ahh Slashdot

[Pyrion]

So, in this case, they got lazy and dumped their responsibility on him, and then arrested him for non-compliance, which I assume made sense to them because at least it got the mob to disperse, right?

Re:Ahh Slashdot

[bferrell]

by means of releasing a dangerous animal under circumstances evincing the actor's intent that the animal obstruct governmental administration.

I dunno... a large pack of teenage girls could maybe construed as dangerous animals

Re:Ahh Slashdot

[TheCarp]

I am MOSTLY ok with this.

Certainly I am ok with it in the case of the man who was arrested, convicted, appealed, and eventually won. It was a precident setter.

After that, maybe a few times. However, that was 20 years ago! I would like to think that, by now, the police would be receiving some manner of training that covered this part of the law, since its one that they actually need to evaluate fairly often. Its not like we are talking about a potential Lacey Act violation here... this is law that applies to their day to day operations. I just don't see how they can be excused from such a gross misapplication of such a well trodden law.

As to maintaining order... the courts have ruled that this behavior is NOT DISORDERLY. Surely they should understand the basic concept of what is and is not maintaining order BEFORE they are set out to perform the task?

Frankly, I think the police are allowed to get away with far too much in the name of expediency. Though, that goes right back to a point I was making earlier. If the law has no teeth, even the police will not follow it. There is just no incentive to obey the law when there are no consequences to not obeying it. Thats the very reason that "fruit of the poison tree" evidence is tossed out... to create a disincentive for the police to break the law (it ruins their case). Clearly such disincentives are needed.

-Steve

Re:Ahh Slashdot

[Pyrion]

Criminal nuisance is basically creating a mob situation.

But he didn't create the mob. He didn't drag these people in in shackles and order them to do what they did. They independently chose to be there and they independently chose to become unruly.

Finally obstructing government administration should be pretty obvious but I can explain it for you since it is vague. How about getting in the way of the police and not helping them stop the mob you created.

Since he didn't create the mob, but rather it created itself, he didn't get in the way of police either. The police dumped their responsibility for controlling and/or dispersing the mob in his lap, and then arrested him for non-compliance, in effect, not doing their job for them.

Re:Ahh Slashdot

[commodore64_love]

Yes.

But when police make a mistake, as in the Professor Gates case, then they should have to serve equal time. If Gates spent a night in jail and was found "not guilty" and released, then the arresting officers should ALSO have to spend a night in jail.

Perhaps it will teach them to be more understanding of the citizens' viewpoint (jail is not fun; neither is being away from home for a night), and they'll be less inclined to pull that "You're under arrest" trigger for trivial stuff. i.e. They would have left Gates rant and not arrested him.

Re:Ahh Slashdot

[shutdown -p now]

Wrong. Failure to comply with a lawful order of a police officer is, by definition, "independently unlawful", within the great context.

But wait, isn't police officer is the "administration" being "obstructed" in the first place here? If so, then disobeying a lawful order is not independent from obstruction - it is what constituted the obstruction in the first place! - and thus isn't "independently unlawful".

Of course IANAL, so it may well be that common sense is trumped by the law here (as it so often is), and your reading is correct - which would essentially mean that disobeying a police order will automatically get you charged with both things - whatever it is that makes such disobedience unlawful, and then additionally "obstructing administration ... of law" on top of that.

Of course, it effectively means charging twice for exact same thing, only described in different words to muddy the water. Imagine that you'd punch someone in the face and get two charges, one for assault, and the other for "endangering health of a person by means of an independently unlawful act"...

Well, I guess there's always some legalese weaseling out - like first one cop asks you to comply and you refuse, and then the second cop does the same and you refuse again, and now your refusal to the first cop is "independently unlawful" with respect to "obstructing" the second cop. If it is indeed something like that, then I'll categorize this as yet another example demonstrating how the modern legal system is broadly fucked up.

Re:Ahh Slashdot

[dave562]

The job of the police is to maintain order. If someone is being disorderly the odds are pretty good that they are going to end up getting arrested. Whether or not that arrest is lawful or not will be sorted out in the courts. Quite often the events that surround the arrest (resisting, striking an officer, etc) are the charges that end up getting filed by the DA.

The sad fact of the matter is that when the cops show up, we have two choices. Either we can leave the situation, or we can submit to whatever they tell us to do.

Re:Ahh Slashdot

[ConfusedVorlon]

what's a lawful order?

is there a clear definition?

Re:Ahh Slashdot

[Pyrion]

As this man appeared to, for all intents and purposes, be responsible for forming and further inciting the mob via deliberately false information, I would say the police were pretty well justified in assuming he was the de facto leader of the mob. Ergo, appealing to the leader to disperse the mob would, in fact, be a perfectly logical, reasonable, and by far the most peaceful tool in the police's toolbox for dealing with this situation.

By attempting to compel him into doing their job. Ultimately, they're the ones responsible for dispersing the mob and preventing the riot, right? They're most certainly justified in arresting him for inciting a riot, I'm not debating that, I am however debating the legality of arresting him, not for inciting the riot, but refusing to do the police's job of dispersing the mob for them.

And what about the rioters? Why are they off the hook?

Re:Ahh Slashdot

[pla]

Apparently the official answer is: No they shouldn't.

You and several others have made some excellent points, but all missed the "real" story here.

The police know the charges won't stick, most likely the DA will write them off the second it hits his desk.

But these self-important assholes got to stick a rich and powerful man in a cage for a few hours. This may have included such wonderfully fun activities as a strip/cavity search, fingerprinting (that ink comes right out of $4000 cashmere suits, we promise), a parasite dusting, and getting to hang out with the cream of society in a 10x10 cell.

They don't care whether or not the charges stick, they've already "gotten theirs" against this uppity prick who didn't immediately comply with their demands. It only surprises me that they didn't tase him in the process.

Re:Ahh Slashdot

[socz]

so one time, i got pulled over on my motorcycle because my "new motorcycle license plate holder (waiting for a license plate to be issued)" was dirty and that made me suspicious! After explaining that and giving the police officer all my paper work and walking 1/2 way back to his cruiser, he turned around and gave me my things back while saying "get out of here, i won't fuck with you." Nice to know that he could have found some BS to get me on even though he had no valid reason to stop me!

Re:Ahh Slashdot

[TheCarp]

> The job of the police is to maintain order. If someone is being disorderly the odds are pretty good that they are
> going to end up getting arrested.

My problem here is that this goes to the very center of the question of what is order exactly, and what level of it do they need to maintain.

If a court has ruled that a particular action is not disorderly, then the police are NOT maintaining order by arresting a person who is doing it. This is not a controversial matter, its settled by the courts. Its been settled by the courts. How can it be the responsibility of the police to maintain order, but not their responsibility to actually know what that means?

My company has a responsibility (by law) to protect its customers information (healthcare). As an employee, no matter what department I work in, I have to take a refresher training class every year. Actually, I have to take a couple of related courses each year. Each year they go over the current understanding of ethics, what issues we have been having, what questions come up, what we need to report and why etc.

Why do we do it? Because the law has teeth. Because we are liable if we don't. Very simple.

-Steve

Re:Ahh Slashdot

[Idiomatick]

Watch the video. It was like releasing a biological weapon. Scary shit.... like horror movie level.

Re:Ahh Slashdot

[dave562]

The law enforcement agencies are also liable. It just takes more to go after them. Unfortunately they only seem to be held accountable after a long history of gross misconduct and after trampling on civil liberties for an extended period of time.

An example from Los Angeles is what happened in MacAurther park. Despite obvious use of force problems on part of the LAPD, none of the officers involved were charged.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-melee31-2009oct31,0,5092137.story

I'm of the opinion that more often than not, the police rely too much on violence and coercion to do their jobs. Most often they seem to use excess force to disperse crowds and large gatherings. Given what I've seen and experienced with law enforcement, I just make it a point of avoiding them.

Re:Ahh Slashdot

[TheCarp]

> You're assuming that their intention is to rigorously uphold the law.

I made no statement of intention :)

What they intend is besides the point, if anything, what you describe is part of the problem that needs to
be solved. What I am talking about is what changes in culture the police need to make if they want to be
viewed as a respectable institution by me. That is, an institution that avoids even the perception of impropriety, whenever possible.

Not so much rigorous upholding the law, as thats only so possible. They HAVE to prioritize just as a practical matter. However, they should under no circumstances, be breakers of the law. They should STRIVE to AVOID stepping over the bounds of their authority.

When they live up to these standards. When honest effort is made to make absolutely sure that they have not stepped over the line, when they readily admit their error and strive to make ammends for it, then such incidents are more forgiveable. When the organization learns from its mistakes and adjusts how it trains its people, THEN they earn the privilege of being forgiven.

When they claim they did nothing wrong, when they defend their actions, when they do it over and over again for years.... there really is no reason to give them any sympathy.

Its sort of, if they wont address these issues internally, then it is entirely right to put pressure on them to reform.

-Steve

Re:Ahh Slashdot

[Dan541]

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.

I assume voting for the opposition falls into the same category.

Re:Ahh Slashdot

[JesseMcDonald]

If so then they're obviously misapplying it. Interference is a positive action. Refusal to act is not any kind of positive action, and cannot constitute interference.

Re:Ahh Slashdot

[AK Marc]

The job of the police is to maintain order.

I disagree with that. The job of the police is to enforce the law. If the laws aren't being broken, but the situation is likely headed that way, then they should step in and inform those that appear to be headed towards unlawfulness that they are headed that way. But they should not step in before the law is broken because they can never know for sure it will be.

Whether or not that arrest is lawful or not will be sorted out in the courts.

How I wish the law applied to the police. If what you say is true, then if the arrest wasn't lawful, then the police involved should lose their jobs and be facing criminal charges for unlawful arrest. Not to mention the balance of powers was instituted such that it is the right of the police to not enforce laws (as long as they do so equitably) in order to protect the people. They are charged with enforcing the laws. They should know them well enough to do their job well, or find another job.

Re:Ahh Slashdot

[Paxtez]

Umm.. Maybe something like: Any order which in it's self is not unlawful.

IE:
You! Keep pressing on this guy's chest for CPR. Lawful order.
You! Help me load up my car with TVs from this store I just broke into. Unlawful order.

Is there a clear definition? Probabaly not. Laws are VERY gray, and even when they are not the interpretation of them is.

Re:Ahh Slashdot

[smoker2]

You are a fool. You are supposed to obey an order from a police officer, when that order is given in the course of the officer performing his duty. Refusal to follow that order is interfering with his ability to carry out his duty. Ever heard of resisting arrest ? You don't have to do anything, you just have to refuse to do what they tell you. It is still a positive act. Without time travel there can never be such a thing as a negative act. The consequences can be negative but the act never is. You can't say "no" without saying something - speech is a positive action.

Re:Ahh Slashdot

[Jumperalex]

IANAL and perhaps a real lawyer can pipe up here. But if the intent at the moment is to "maintain order" as you say then what stops the police from detaining and restraining the individual(s) required to maintain order and then release them. Nothing says they need to be officially arrested and charged at that point does it?

I would still think it would suck to have that happen when you are still not committing an actual crime that you could be charged and convicted of, but it seems like that is the middle ground between not controlling a situation and coming up with some bullshit charge that will never stick as an excuse.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the police already have this ability. Of course they are SUPPOSED to have a good reason to detain, restrain, and maybe even pat search, but again, I contend that if the cops are already to the point of arresting for bullshit reasons (which includes detain, restrain and pat search) I'd rather see them stop short of the official arrest and criminal charges [shrug]

Now this is just Stupidity at its finest

[ITJC68]

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.

Re:Now this is just Stupidity at its finest

[oreaq]

Unpaid time off? He basically kidnapped a completely innocent man. How about giving him the same punishment that everyone else would get for that crime?

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:Now this is just Stupidity at its finest

[h4rr4r]

Someone please mod parent up.

Flamebait != I disagree.

Re:Now this is just Stupidity at its finest

[CannonballHead]

The same way tweeting incited a crowd to that level of craziness in the first place?

Re:Now this is just Stupidity at its finest

[Nadaka]

hell yes. When the police so blatantly violate their civil duties and constitutional limitations they should face the absolute full wrath of the legal system. There is no excuse for this kind of abuse of power.

Re:Now this is just Stupidity at its finest

[macbeth66]

Cops are not exactly the brightest of the bunch.

Cops arrested a couple for theft at a restaurant. http://media.www.thebrownandwhite.com/media/storage/paper1233/news/2009/11/20/News/Two-Local.Students.Arrested.For.Refusing.To.Tip.At.Lehigh.Pub-3837030.shtml

As it turns out, the charges were dropped. But they arrested someone for not paying a gratuity that was less than $20? I can smell the lawsuits against the city coming. At least the restuarant won't survive the year.

Re:Now this is just Stupidity at its finest

[masmullin]

That's not the point. The point is the cops told him to do something and he didn't do it... in the old days he'd get raped by a billy club.

Re:Now this is just Stupidity at its finest

[tftp]

The point is the cops told him to do something and he didn't do it...

The order must be lawful. In this case I believe the order to ask the crowd to disperse was lawful, and it doesn't matter if the message is shouted through the bullhorn or sent through Twitter.

The police could themselves tell the crowd to go home, but from every POV it is better if the organizers do that - they have better contact with the crowd. That's why he was approached and asked to cooperate.

Re:Now this is just Stupidity at its finest

[Nazlfrag]

If you RTFA he would have been arrested just like his boss was if he'd shown his face. The cops fucked this one up and are trying to attribute their complete failure at crowd control to a twitter message not being sent, when they decided to forbid the singer from attending and think it wouldn't escalate the situation? The cops screwed this one up, no-one else, especially not a twitter message (that appears to have been sent anyway).

Re:Now this is just Stupidity at its finest

[AP31R0N]

Because it was too much of an imposition to ask him to spend 2 minutes posting 144 characters or less to help for whatever good it might have done. What an Orwellian horror!

old ways are still the best.

[Anonymous Coward]

Was their bullhorn broken?

Re:old ways are still the best.

[CannonballHead]

People respect individuals far more than the police. After all, we all know the police force is out to get you and is only there for nefarious reasons (like taking away your drugs or your fun). Why should we listen to the police?

Seriously, I don't think this generation cares about the police. We have decided that we'd rather rebel and follow some rich guy (put anyone's name in there, even a celebrity) than submit to an authority.

It's an "against the establishment" thing... doesn't particularly matter what "the establishment" is, actually.

Re:old ways are still the best.

[Nadaka]

Make sure its the old fashioned flammable tear gas too.

Re:old ways are still the best.

[zotz]

If this is so, is it any wonder why the same people have issues with obeying the copyright laws?

Perhaps the big execs need to see to it that the only music and movies that get made and distributed by their companies are about respecting authority and abiding by the law and then their illegal downloading troubles will go away.

3. ???

4. Profit.

all the best,

drew

Re:old ways are still the best.

[Pyrion]

Why should we listen to the police?

By that logic, why listen to anyone conscripted into doing the job of a police officer?

Re:old ways are still the best.

[evil_aar0n]

> Seriously, I don't think this generation cares about the police.

When a quick search turns up this:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=police+brutality&search_type=&aq=2&oq=police+

I wonder whether there's reason to respect the police. This, by the way, is just the tip of the iceberg because it only covers what was put up on YouTube. What about the stuff that's not captured on camera? Or the stuff that was done years ago before there was a YouTube?

Add it all up, and I have to agree with whomever it was that said, "Fuck tha police." When they start treating us with respect, I'll reconsider.

Re:old ways are still the best.

[TheRaven64]

And how many videos are there on YouTube of the police going about their business, apprehending criminals and doing their job in a calm and courteous manner? Obviously none, because it doesn't make good TV, but it corresponds more closely with my dealings with the police (in the UK, so perhaps it's different, but you'll find lots of videos of police brutality from our police too). If you treat all of the police as you would treat one of the few dangerous psychopaths on the force, then you shouldn't be surprised when they all decide to act like those few. Push to get the bad ones expelled from the service (and prosecuted if they warrant it), don't tar them all with the same brush. I can find lots of videos on YouTube of black people beating someone up too - does that mean I should adopt a 'fuck the blacks' attitude?

So...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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?

Re:So...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

And here I was, thinking that I'd laid the sarcasm on thick enough....

Re:So...

[Matheus]

Why was this modded "Funny"? I find the fact that this comment is WAY too much of a potential reality FAR from funny.

Re:So...

[ElKry]

It's never thick enough for some people...

Re:So...

[clone53421]

Poe’s Law... learn it, love it...

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

[ShiningSomething]

How would have Twitter helped? He may deserve to be arrested, but his refusal to tweet is not the reason why.

Re:Posters here are like the teens in the vid

[bickle]

1) Person sends tweet
2) Tweet is sent to 100's of dumb fans via instant message on their phones
3) OMG A MSG I HAVE TO READ IT RIGHT NOW

Re:Posters here are like the teens in the vid

[roguetrick]

Even if they didn't, it'd keep MORE people from showing up and creating an even LARGER clusterfuck.

Re:Posters here are like the teens in the vid

[roguetrick]

The internet press is focusing on the twitter thing. You have to admit, its some headline to get people's panties in a bundle.

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:Posters here are like the teens in the vid

[Sulphur]

No, ordering someone to 'tweet' is as every bit as ridiculous as it sounds.

Was he wearing a canary suit?

Re:Posters here are like the teens in the vid

[nomadic]

but what the hell is a tweet going to do?

Might keep him from getting arrested for one.

Re:Posters here are like the teens in the vid

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly what a record exec wants. Massive publicity.

Re:Posters here are like the teens in the vid

[Rene S. Hollan]

I Agree.

I once helped organize a peaceful public march on public sidewalks that ended in a public park with a community picnic. I had to obtain indemnity forms from all participants for my own protection (in case someone slipped and twisted an ankle), but more imnportantly, also obtain insurance to compensate the city if there was any damage: $250,000 worth, given the size of the crowd. (It was actually cheap, about $200).

I was also expected to ensure that people acted in an ORDERLY manner, and would have been required to pay for police presence if the crowd was expected to be large.

The point here was that the event was badly organized and the organizers charged regardless of whether they cooperated with "tweeting" or not. They just made a bad situation worse by not cooperating.

Re:Posters here are like the teens in the vid

[sunking2]

Really I would think its up to the mall to be responsible for the safety in its own place. Malls are hurting pretty bad right now and any excuse to pack it full of people is good for them, safe or not. If you can't support a venue then you shouldn't have it. It's not like he just walked in off the street and decided to this.

Re:Posters here are like the teens in the vid

[roguetrick]

Truthfully? Because America would go apeshit if a bunch of white teenage girls got blasted by the riot police.

Re:Posters here are like the teens in the vid

[thickdiick]

That's like saying you support freedom of speech only as long as it's NOT exercised in front of the Capitol building, in National Parks, public beaches, post offices, police stations, courts, schools, et cetera.

Yeah, brilliant thinking on your part.

Re:Posters here are like the teens in the vid

[tomhudson]

It was also on private property, so the mall owners, who were in on it. were responsible for the venue and crowd control.

At these sort of things, the police usually have a presence, either officially, or off-duty cops making some extra cash, or both.

They (mall operator and police) "screwed the pooch" by letting the place get filled to over-capacity in the first place.

A tweet could have just as easily started a riot (watch the video). It could also have attracted even more people to "see what the buzz was about."

The cops need lessons in field coordination, crowd control, and how the 14th amendment makes the first amendment apply to them.

Re:Posters here are like the teens in the vid

[thickdiick]

It is unreasonable to compel someone to publish something in which they do not believe using their own name.

Re:Posters here are like the teens in the vid

[jopsen]

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.

True, if you want to address a huge crowd, please do it a place with barriers, tear gas pipes and a huge barb wire fence...

Sorry, but it's fun to interpret like a paranoid conspiracy believing American :)
(Not that I'm either American or paranoid...)

Re:Posters here are like the teens in the vid

[Rene S. Hollan]

We were not protesting and did not need a permit. But, there were reasonable bylaws regarding crowd control and we chose to follow them.

I suppose if we did have an issue to protest AND were obstructed from doing so, we could chose to engage in civil disobedience.

The bylaws in question were designed to try to ensure that assemblies remained peaceful and the dollar amounts involved were not overly burdensome.

The purpose of permits and insurance is mot to deter assembly (though they can be abused for those ends), but rather to ensure order and protect property.

Re:Posters here are like the teens in the vid

[Rene S. Hollan]

Private property yes. But it was also a "public place". Special laws generally apply in such circumstances: owners can ask people to leave (and they are trespassing if they don't), but the presumption is that the public are welcome.

Re:Posters here are like the teens in the vid

[Idbar]

Have you watched the video?
The screaming teens wouldn't let me go too far in the video. For the safety of the eardrums of whomever Justin Bieber is, I think canceling the event was appropriate, glasses may have shattered.

Re:Posters here are like the teens in the vid

[__aasqbs9791]

Maybe it's a new form of drunk test?

Cop McDonald: What sound does the cow make?

Drunk: Mooooooo.

Cop McDonald: What sound does the Horse make?

Drunk: Tweet! Tweet!

Cop McDonald: Hands behind your back, you're going downtown!

Re:Posters here are like the teens in the vid

[zullnero]

Yeah? Well, if the Mall decided to host it, do you know for certain if they DIDN'T say that they would supply their own security?

Yeah, I know it's /., but please. Think about it a little more. This story isn't giving you all the details. Venues often supply their own security for various events. Talent agencies supply the talent, but frequently, they don't do things like rent a small army of security people, with the exception of their own security guards for their talent. They don't lug in 500 chairs and 175 tables and the people needed to set them all up. It's up to the venue.

Malls host this stuff because it means lots of teenagers are going to show up with their parents in tow, and that means money gets spent. The people responsible for this mess are the people who run that mall, unless they explicitly demanded that the talent bring his own small army of rent-a-cops, posts and ropes, and whatever else they'd need to organize these people. Think about it...malls, rent-a-cops. They usually have them on hand. They probably hold other events as well...you get it?

Re:Posters here are like the teens in the vid

[Pig Hogger]

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.

It is surprising that fire protection laws were not invoked; having watched a bit of the video, and seeing how the mall was pack-jammed full, the number of people present surely violated the fire safety codes (they could not have been evacuated in a timely manner in case of fire).

Re:Posters here are like the teens in the vid

[Nerdfest]

Why is the record company going to care? This is big, free publicity for some (most likely) low-talent act. Even if someone gets killed in a stanpede, it's unlikely that they'll be found guilty of anything ... and boy, would that sort of thing ever get their 'star' into the headlines.

Re:Posters here are like the teens in the vid

[Thinboy00]

1) Person sends tweet
2) Tweet is sent to 100's of dumb fans via instant message on their phones
3) OMG A MSG I HVE 2 REED IT RITE NOW

FTFY

Re:Posters here are like the teens in the vid

[green1]

they also generally have to adhere to a local fire code which specifies the maximum occupancy of the location, allowing anyone in once the venue has reached that maximum is usually illegal.

Re:Posters here are like the teens in the vid

[tsstahl]

Sorry, despite freedom of speech and assembly, people don't have the right to set up giant panicky dangerous packed mob.

Really? The civil rights movement was for naught? Restricting free movement starts with teen idol fans and then moves to political rallies in the same place. I agree this guy committed a moral wrong. I'm not so sure on the legal front, though. Let's examine the gray very closely before we scream black or white.

Re:Posters here are like the teens in the vid

[Anonymous Coward]

"Have you watched the video? Did you see how PACKED it was? "

Yeah, I watched the video. Those teenage girls looked awfully dangerous ... yeap ... real public danger there. Careful, you might get trampled by a pair of high heels or have lipstick smeared on you are mistaken for Justin Bieber. /saracasm off/ So as someone else asked - where was the bullhorn?

.

Re:Posters here are like the teens in the vid

[treeves]

What did the record exec not believe? If the police asked him to communicate that the performer was not going to appear, why would that contradict his belief?

Re:Posters here are like the teens in the vid

[Spykk]

This record exec, if he arranged this, screwed up in a HUGE way.

If you say so... It sounds like the event was popular enough to draw a huge crowd, and now it is getting all sorts of coverage in the media due to this arrest. Mission accomplished?

Re:Posters here are like the teens in the vid

[StrategicIrony]

However, the simple act of saying "George will be at the mall at 2pm" does not constitute a march, or a parade and it's hard to imagine that this would require a permit.

Do you think it should?

Re:Posters here are like the teens in the vid

[yurtinus]

I believe what our anarchist friend was trying to say was:

RIOT!! BURN THE PLACE DOWN!!!

It's sad when people forget that rights require responsibilities...

Re:Posters here are like the teens in the vid

[Sulphur]

The problem is untweetable.

Re:Posters here are like the teens in the vid

[celtic_hackr]

So, when did they repeal the Constitutional right to peaceable assembly? Because, apparently, you seem to think that right no longer exists.

Now the guy might be guilty of reckless endangerment. But the crowd looked pretty peaceful to me. Certainly more peaceful than the crowd we'll see all across America on Friday. Now if what this guy did is illegal then what every major store across America has planned is certainly far worse, and we should go and arrest all of the executives of WalMart on down to Best Buy, right now (for the actions they've done in the past that is)!

While I agree what he did, was bad, I don't see how he can be arrested for not doing their job for him. Nor do I see any reason why anyone should be forced to pay for having police or security as a gathering. Or why anyone should be forced to buy insurance in order to exercise the right of peaceful assembly. If something bad happens and it can be shown the organizers were negligent, then by all mean sue them or jail them if it results in harm to people.

Insurance companies have got a racket going now, in my opinion an extortion racket, backed up by laws. I can't believe, I'm defending a record exec, even if what he did was reckless.

Of course, now reading TFA, it seems he actually did comply with the police. So it should be interesting what happens. Of course, he'll be protected by his company's billions of dollars, so He'll have some fairly decent lawyering behind him.

Re:Posters here are like the teens in the vid

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Especially when you consider that the star of the day declined to show up for autographs - because the crowd was too unruly...

Re:Posters here are like the teens in the vid

[DavidTC]

He had no duty to send a Tweet, and will not face any penalty for refusing to do so, at least under an obstruction charge.

Right, but the courts can take how much you attempted to migrate the problem into account during sentencing.

If someone is in your house, and the ceiling fan falls on them for no reason, you're legally liable. But you are not required to call the hospital (In most jurisdictions, some you can be required to), you are not required to drive them there, you are not even required to give them an aspirin or a bandage. Hell, you don't even have to let them lay there on the floor, it's your property.

And if you don't do those things, and proudly stand in court and say you weren't required to do those things by law, they will ream your ass in the lawsuit, because it looks very very bad.

Re:Posters here are like the teens in the vid

[DavidTC]

Almost any law can conceivable be stretched to cover some constitutionally protected activity.

But, perhaps more importantly, people only have the right to peaceably assemble.

And that word's in there for a reason. Sometimes assemblies turn into mobs, which are intentionally not-peaceful, and sometimes they turn into dangerous crowds, which are accidentally not-peaceful. (The first threaten people outside the group, the second threatens people in the group itself, if you see the distinction I'm making. Almost always one of the first is also the second...angry mobs often don't care if they trample their own people.)

But that logic doesn't work for, say, fire codes. It's very easy to have enough people to be over the limit in a building, and yet have everyone calm and even sitting down or whatever.

To figure that out, we need to look at the difference between 'public safety' in some abstract, which the government should not be elevating about the 1st amendment, and actual 'immediate safety of members of public'.

The latter is reasonable. The former is not. The right to 'life' is an inherent right on equal footing with the 1st amendment. (Yes, yes, it's in the Declaration of Independence, but it's certainly one of the unenumerated rights in the 9th amendment.)

Re:Posters here are like the teens in the vid

[Rene S. Hollan]

Well, I understand our anarchist friend's angst that rights are lost if not defended, but they are reciprocal: I don't own the public lands in my town, and it is reasonable that they be administered by elected representatives of the townsfolk and I should respect the rules related to their sharing... so long as they do not infringe rights I actually do have.

Just because I have the right to peaceful assembly does not mean others are obligated to provide me a place to do so.

Even fundamental rights, like speech, are not absolute. Prior restraint, though abused, is warranted, in narrow circumstances, when the speech would otherwise reasonably be expected to cause irreparable harm. You can shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, but only if there is a fire there: surely a panic will ensue, but the risk of injury of trampling is less than certain death by fire. If there is no fire, such panic-inducing speech is harmful.

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.

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:Good

[gfreeman]

tl;dr

>140 characters

Re:How would that work

[roguetrick]

Hes saying he started an account to make Pizza analogies, and plans on continuing to do so until everyone is pissed at his attention whoring, or they all form a mob to get autographs from him when he sends out tweets. Whichever comes first.

Remain calm.

[Aphoxema]

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

Re:Remain calm.

[Aphoxema]

Oh, sorry about that, I capitalized the "I" and "GTFO" and "O" in "Oh". I also used one too many commas. I'm new at this, please forgive me.

Re:Remain calm.

[clone53421]

That’s okay; it was still less than 140 characters.

Re:Remain calm.

[Fotograf]

gtfo is actually a verb, so really no need for big letters.

Riotous rumor

[Silentknyght]

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.

Re:Riotous rumor

[canajin56]

Yeah, previous posters, there's a legitimate source of information. You could read the god damn article, but that's way too hard, just read the comments and assume the ones you like were in the article. If you read TFA, the crowds were contained by police, who errected barricades to try and hold them back. The singer tweeted them all that it was off, and not to show up. They started dispursing without a story on the national news, so the record exec tweeted and told them it was still on, mixup, he's inside RIGHT NOW RUN HURRY! And they rioted, smashing through barricades. Yeah, you're totally right, teenagers don't bring cellphones when they go outside, and those few that do don't fucking use twitter. Idiot, every last one was subscribed, that's why they showed up in the first place, twitter flashcrowd. So the guy got arrested because, instead of doing what he was asked, telling them it was canceled, because it was, he told them it's still on, and urged them to break through police barricades.

Re:Riotous rumor

[brkello]

If you read previous posts, how could you have missed all the ones that were stating the facts about the article? I'll repeat, it was to stop more people from showing up at the event, not to disperse the crowd.

Re:Riotous rumor

[Pyrion]

And they rioted, smashing through barricades.

So why not arrest them for rioting?

Re:Riotous rumor

[Silentknyght]

Yeah, previous posters, there's a legitimate source of information. You could read the god damn article, but that's way too hard, just read the comments and assume the ones you like were in the article.

Yeah, I can be a pompous ass just like you. Notice the freaking timestamp of my post, and perhaps realize that it was posted considerably earlier than yours and many others, and by the nature of time, I hadn't the luxury of reading posts & information made in the future... Moreover, the only reason it WASN'T posted 10 or so minutes earlier than it actually was is that I actually took the time to read the linked article--which provided meager insights, as it can barely be called an article--and watched the video. Jerk.

Re:Riotous rumor

[celtic_hackr]

Wow! You must have read a different TFA than I did. None of that was in TFA I read, which is the one linked above.

Re:Riotous rumor

[aug24]

I don't know what FA you are reading, but it isn't the one linked to when I click on it... Nor is it the Newsday article linked in the FA...

Re:Riotous rumor

[QuietObserver]

Ditto. I've seen this rumor that the executive tweeted the assembly calling them back, but I've yet to see a single link to anything supporting the rumor, and a few comments even providing potential refutation. Sounds to me like we've got a bunch of anti-*AA shills trying to hurt this executive's image without evidence to support their claims. (Not that I know whether or not Def Jam Records is part of the RIAA).

Re:Dark Ages

[Goaway]

What if he doesn't use twitter?

Do you honestly think they would have asked that of him if he didn't?

I'm no fan of music execs

[hamburgler007]

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.

Re:I'm no fan of music execs

[icebraining]

He is *not* being accused of "not tweetering", he's being accused of calling a huge crowd to appear without any kind of organization for the safety of the people present. The police had to come to clean up the shit he made, and asked him to tweet to prevent even more people showing up.

They got it backwards

[ShiningSomething]

Some people should be arrested for what they decide to tweet about.

Re:They got it backwards

[canajin56]

There's a difference between just refusing to text people that an appearance has been canceled, and texting to tell them to ignore the singer's twitter account, because the appearance has NOT been canceled after all, and to hurry inside! He was arrested for the latter. Slashdot wants you filled with blind rage at THE MAN, so they put up a fictional summary and hoped that, as expected, nobody would read TFA and find nothing in the summary was in there.

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.

Roppo continued to tweet about the autograph signing even after it was canceled and ended up being arrested for reckless endangerment among other crimes.

He was already in trouble for planning an event without any form of crowd control, but when he defied police attempts to break it up, then he got arrested. He himself says its for blatently unconstitutional bs about being coerced into texting against his will. But it's reasonable. If you shout on the bullhorn "FREE CANDY EVERYBODY RUSH INSIDE" the police are within their rights to ask you to use it to say "SORRY I WAS LYING" to calm them down. Especially since a police officer can just use the bullhorn themselves, but nobody but the exec could push the retraction to his twitter account...

Re:They got it backwards

[shutdown -p now]

There's a difference between just refusing to text people that an appearance has been canceled, and texting to tell them to ignore the singer's twitter account, because the appearance has NOT been canceled after all, and to hurry inside! He was arrested for the latter. Slashdot wants you filled with blind rage at THE MAN, so they put up a fictional summary and hoped that, as expected, nobody would read TFA and find nothing in the summary was in there.

What TFA are you reading? The one I am (which is linked from the summary) is titled "Man Arrested for Not Using Twitter". It also contains this quote:

Police arrested a senior vice president from Bieber’s label, Island Def Jam Records, James A. Roppo, 44, of Hoboken, N.J., saying he hindered their crowd-control efforts by not cooperating. ...
“We asked for his help in getting the crowd to go away by sending out a Twitter message,” Smith said. “By not cooperating with us we feel he put lives in danger and the public at risk.”

Your quotes are not from the linked article. It may well be that the article from which this story is derived is fake, as are all the police quotes in it, but it's not "Slashdot ... putting up a fictional summary".

Re:They got it backwards

[JesseMcDonald]

If you shout on the bullhorn "FREE CANDY EVERYBODY RUSH INSIDE" the police are within their rights to ask you to use it to say "SORRY I WAS LYING" to calm them down.

[Citation needed.]

Why would anyone ever have the right to make someone speak against their will?

Not about twitter

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:Not about twitter

[DavidTC]

I suspect the 'twitter' thing was the police telling him to ask more people not show up, via twitter.

That said, his refusing was not illegal, the police can't make people say things. Which is why he wasn't charged for anything like that.

But failing to try to migrate the danger during a mob (By directing people elsewhere) will almost certainly adversely affect his defense on the actual charges in court.

If there's a dangerous situation that you created and are in charge of, and the police are taking control and ask you to do something, well, often, they don't have legal grounds to make you do that thing, and you can refuse if you want.

And then you'll stand in front of the jury as the police recount that, while the danger's creation might have been unknowing, even after you were apprised of the danger of the situation, you knowingly refused to do things to migrate the danger. And, well, welcome to jail for creating that danger in the first place.

Whereas if, when you were told the crowd was turning into a mob, you made every effort to fix the situation, you often won't be charged at all, or just given a small fine.

Re:Not about twitter

[pleappleappleap]

But failing to try to migrate the danger during a mob (By directing people elsewhere) will almost certainly adversely affect his defense on the actual charges in court.

Huh?

Re:Not about twitter

[tftp]

Huh?

s/migrate/mitigate/g, as it seems...

Re:Prediction: settlement in court for $$, blue om

[Goaway]

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.

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.

It's a tough call....

[ikefox]

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.

Re:It's a tough call....

[pleappleappleap]

RTFM. They didn't arrest Justin Bieber. Justin Bieber is 15 years old.

It was a near riot of teenage girls!

[sugapablo]

Tweeting is the ONLY way to break up a riot of teenage girls!

Re:It was a near riot of teenage girls!

[GodfatherofSoul]

That or throw a mop in their direction. I guarantee they'll scatter to the four corners.

Re:It was a near riot of teenage girls!

[yurtinus]

I'm pretty sure that was more of a commentary on punk kids these days not doing their chores... At least, that's what I got out of it. But y'know, girl power amirite?

Re:It was a near riot of teenage girls!

[yurtinus]

We could probably conduct several studies and publish our results in peer reviewed sociology journals that will support this statement. +1 Informative!

Re:It was a near riot of teenage girls!

[GodfatherofSoul]

Relax, Gloria (Steinem). I was talking about teenagers.

Re:It was a near riot of teenage girls!

[deek]

I disagree. A compilation of geeks would work just as well, or possibly be even more effective.

Even better, the phrase "Release the geeks!" could be used. That's just awesomeness in itself.

Re: It was a near riot of teenage girls!

[MacWiz]

Tweeting is the ONLY way to break up a riot of teenage girls!

The first idea was to tazer 50 or 60 of them. The second idea was to tazer this Justin kid. Both of those ideas would have set off a 3,000-strong sonic blast of teen screams, forcing them to reconsider.

They arrested the "record executive" for being "in charge," but not in control. They should have arrested him just for being a record executive pushing 12-year-olds. /For those unable to tell, that was sarcasm.

First Amendment?

[overshoot]

And here I thought that the Free Speech Clause applied equally to compelled speech.

Who knew?

Re:First Amendment?

[Reziac]

That's a good point, actually. How can the authorities compell you to make a statement, regardless of the circumstances?? How is that any different from being arrested for not shouting praises of Chairman Mao? (Don't get fooled by the circumstances here.)

The guy may be a moron who failed to prepare for a fairly predictable crowd response, but even so the whole thing could make for a VERY bad precedent.

Re:First Amendment?

[arielCo]

So this would be like, the cops desregarded his right to not shouting "there's no fire!" in a crowded theater?

Re:First Amendment?

[Pyrion]

Quite. How likely is it that a mob is going to respond violently when someone, anyone, asks them to calm down or leave, if getting co-opted by the police into doing their job becomes the rule rather than the exception?

Re:First Amendment?

[anyGould]

"Please leave the venue. The concert is cancelled, and singer not very good. I am not being coerced by the police to say this."

Riot control in 140 characters or less.

[gimmebeer]

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.

Re:Riot control in 140 characters or less.

[CannonballHead]

Did they really expect everyone to suddenly chill out and go find something else to do because of a twitter post?

It sounds like twitter was the main communication medium used to organize the event... so, short answer: yes. If twitter is how the event info was being updated, then twitter is how the event info should be, er, updated.

Oh well. I guess the police should have ordered him to e-mail or call everyone that was thinking about coming. That would have been the smart thing to do.

Is this a joke?

[cts5678]

This can't be serious.

My god, it's full of idiots...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:My god, it's full of idiots...

[BatsShadow]

If an exec ... refuses to help disarm the situation then he should be arrested and charged.

What should he be charged with? I don't support laws that essentially say "the police can make you do whatever they want if they feel it is in the best interest of society."

Re:My god, it's full of idiots...

[Tired and Emotional]

Quite right - that would limit the current police powers much too severely.

Re:My god, it's full of idiots...

[tomhudson]

it would still have a calming effect.

I take it you've never been the parent of a teenage daughter ...

"Hello, riot squad? We f*d up here - we told the guy to tweet 'nobody go there' so a huge crowd came to see what's going on and now we can't get out, and we're going deaf from all these teenage girls screaming and OMFG IT'S CONTAGIOUS THIS IS LIKE SO KEWL I M SO DOWN WITH IT YEAH 4EVER THIS ROX U GOT 2 CUM HERE RT NW BRNG TEH GANG BEER CHEEZ DIP LUBE FUK TEH BOSS PARTY PARTY PARTY LOL!"

Re:My god, it's full of idiots...

[thickdiick]

Please enlighten us with your brilliance! It's idiots like you who try to put the blame on someone else for YOUR OWN UNACCEPTABLE FEELINGS OR ACTIONS. It's called projection by psychologists. You are a sick individual in need of some serious, serious help.

Hey, i have a great idea. Let's divulge ourselves of ALL accountability and blame our leaders! Then we will feel a lot better about ourselves!

Victim mentality is taking over.

Re:My god, it's full of idiots...

[Pyrion]

So why not arrest them for rioting? Why do they get an excuse?

Re:My god, it's full of idiots...

[edjs]

Inciting to riot?

Re:My god, it's full of idiots...

[pleappleappleap]

Unacceptable feelings? Tell me you're kidding.

Crap

[wkurzius]

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.

Re:Crap

[Knara]

Sounds like the venue management's fault for not properly preparing for the crowd. Tweeting does not compel people to do anything, civil or uncivil.

Re:Crap

[clone53421]

All of the sources seem to link back to this NY Daily News article, and specifically, this paragraph:

James Roppo, 44, the senior vice president of sales at Island Def Jam Records, sent out Internet messages to over 3,000 fans that Justin Bieber was signing autographs even after police dispersed the crowd, cops said.

If somebody can find a link to those tweets, this accusation has some merit.

Re:Crap

[Reziac]

Not only that, but what about the common scenario of an outdated advertisement in ANY venue? Just because your advertising is outdated, does that somehow absolve everyone else of responsibility for their behaviour??

This is like a store that fails to take down a "SALE!" poster in a timely manner, store then gets mobbed by angry shoppers, then the store manager gets arrested for inciting a riot. WTF?

Re:Crap

[Pyrion]

And in seemingly every case, the rioters get off without so much as a slap on the wrist. If anything, it's encouraging otherwise rational people to throw temper tantrums, since they won't be held responsible for their momentary regressions into spoiled-rotten childhood.

Re:Crap

[JesseMcDonald]

This caused fans to go berzerk [sic] and rush forward, breaking down barriers.

This is a severe mischaracterization. Nothing caused these fans to go berserk; they chose to do so themselves. The police are holding one person accountable for the free and willful actions of others, which is a complete miscarriage of justice.

Re:How would that work

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

"Vee haf vays of making you tweet."

Well, all I know is this --

[dwiget001]

Some lawyers are going to make a boat load of money over this.

Re:How would that work

[roguetrick]

For clarifications sake, I don't know if this guy really did send the tweets after the crowd dispersed completely. Its something I heard on another site. All I know is I don't have much sympathy for this guy.

scary

[zerosomething]

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.

Re:scary

[Pyrion]

They should throw the teenagers in jail out of principle. They want to riot? They get to go on a field trip to learn what the inside of a jail looks like from the perspective of an inmate. Then they can find out what it feels like to be put on trial for participating in a riot.

Wiggum

[Itninja]

"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)'.

Re:How would that work

[Avenger546]

> The guy continued to send out tweets that he was signing autographs after the giant crowd dispersed.

I didn't see that in a single post about this. Every post I saw said "Cops asked him to tweet that the kid wasn't coming, he refused, he got arrested".

(The kid and his people *did* post that it was shut down on his own twitter account. And whose tweets would you be following - the artist, or some record exec?)

Can you show me an article saying "he kept tweeting that the kid would be there even after the event got shut down" ?

I'm surprised I'm the first to ask....

[Jager Dave]

....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....

Re:I'm surprised I'm the first to ask....

[Arimus]

No it isn't.

The police asked him to try to help stop the situation degenerating even further - he refused and got arrested.

And can't help wondering how many other people are in jail for refusing to sing like a bird ;)

Re:How would that work

[lorenlal]

I read the article, and then followed up by going to the linked Newsday article... I saw no such reference.

Can you please provide a link so we can verify that?

Re:How would that work

[Mike Buddha]

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.

Re:How would that work

[sopssa]

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.

seems pretty reasonable to me

[SuperBanana]

Stores, for example, are expected to at least talk to the local PD about traffic/crowd concerns, and engage in some common crowd control 'best practices', call the police if things look like they're getting out of control, etc. And sometimes, yeah, the cops say Pool's Closed if they think people are going to get hurt.

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.

Re:seems pretty reasonable to me

[canajin56]

He didn't just not help. After being asked to tell them to leave, he told them to keep coming, and that the singer was inside signing autographs already, when in fact he had already left after seeing the dangerous crowd of rioting teenage girls. He was arrested because this tweet caused the mostly controlled crowed to surge and riot, smashing barricades and so on.

Re:seems pretty reasonable to me

[GryMor]

Citation Needed (what twitter account, where are the tweets)? If you mean @IslandRecords, one tweet, sent before the event, no indication that Roppo was the author.

Lousy source

[clone53421]

The source in TFA is a news/opinion article about this Newsday article.

Re:How would that work

[roguetrick]

Yeah, thats something I heard from an unverified site, I should've figured it was bogus and only realized it after the fact after looking into thing. I apologize for that, but I still think this whole thing looks like a douche bag maneuver by an asshole seeking publicity.

Re:How would that work

[pal3f]

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.

Where did you read/hear this? I've read several articles/accounts of this, but I haven't seen anything that says the guy (Roppo) tried to incite the crowd or kept promoting the event after police had shut it down. (Seriously: I'm not saying you're wrong -- I just looking for your source).

Alternative headline:

[Farmer Tim]

Cops powerless against teenage girls.

I think I can see why they needed to arrest someone...

Re:Alternative headline:

[D Ninja]

Cops powerless against teenage girls.

Apparently you didn't have a sister. Teenage girls are scary...especially when it comes to their idols.

(Still get the shakes when I hear N'Sync...)

Re:Alternative headline:

[Farmer Tim]

You're just bitter because you didn't get the tear gas you wanted for Christmas...

Re:How would that work

[roguetrick]

Comments section on another news site, expect me to get modded down on that quick, haha.

Re:How would that work

[pal3f]

Never mind; I read below.

Re:Dark Ages

[CannonballHead]

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. ;)

Re:How would that work

[clone53421]

The guy continued to send out tweets that he was signing autographs after the giant crowd dispersed.

[Citation needed]

From his twitter:

On my way to Roosevelt Field Mall in Long Island, NY to sign and meet fans!! im pumped. see u there
11:59 AM Nov 20th from web

they are not allowing me to come into the mall. if you dont leave I and my fans will be arrested as the police just told us.
1:30 PM Nov 20th from web

the event at roosevelt mall is cancelled. please go home. the police have already arrested one person from my camp. I dont want anyone hurt
1:33 PM Nov 20th from web

Im sorry to everyone who was in Long Island at the Mall 2day. I was just trying to come meet fans and never meant to dissapoint anyone.
2:36 PM Nov 20th from web

today was crazy. feel awful about letting fans down. I tried to get there but they wouldnt let me in - http://bit.ly/727AUl
6:53 PM Nov 20th from web

So where exactly are these tweets of which you speak?

Re:How would that work

[roguetrick]

Let me tell you, if I could edit I would. I didn't think about being in a top position on the comments or that someone would mod my swear filled statement up so high.

and when he was arrested

[hamburger lady]

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?

Re:How would that work

[Critical Facilities]

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.

Re:How would that work

[pal3f]

For clarifications sake, I don't know if this guy really did send the tweets after the crowd dispersed completely. Its something I heard on another site.

Actually, according NYDailyNews, you're right:
James Roppo, 44, the senior vice president of sales at Island Def Jam Records, sent out Internet messages to over 3,000 fans that Justin Bieber was signing autographs even after police dispersed the crowd, cops said.

Re:How would that work

[clone53421]

Honestly dude, your posts from the past few days have been pretty funny, but you’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel to get this one to hold water. It went over like a lead balloon. Try biting your tongue and don’t be so eager to jump in with both feet just for the sake of saying something. If you’re not careful, one apple could spoil the whole bunch.

Re:How would that work

[roguetrick]

Thanks for doing my work for me, but I still stand by my apology because I pretty much had that unverified. Regardless, as people have posted his twitter messages are you sure that the NYDailyNews isn't wrong on this one?

Re:How would that work

[pal3f]

These are Justin Bieber's tweets, not James Roppo's (the label exec who was arrested)

Re:How would that work

[clone53421]

With a lawful order, yes. What they demanded of him was not something that they could lawfully demand him to do.

Re:Dark Ages

[JStegmaier]

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.

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.

Obligatory!

[jggimi]

The timing is absolutely perfect, too: http://dilbert.com/fast/2009-11-24/

Re:How would that work

[clone53421]

...and who the hell follows the senior VP of the label for the celebrity they adore?

TFA even says that presumably they wanted Roppo to make the tweets using Bieber’s twitter. Or maybe they wanted him to have Bieber do it. I don’t know. It’s all pretty unclear what exactly the cops wanted and why they got so butthurt when they didn’t get it, but maybe the arrest records will be released and we can see for ourselves eventually.

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

[canajin56]

That's the singer. The record exec was told by police to break it up, and they started putting up barricades to keep the crowds out of the mall. That's why the singer wasn't allowed in, and had to leave, and that's why he tweeted that. Meanwhile, the exec was still tweeting telling people no no no, it's still on, bring your friends! The police told him to stop, and he said no, it's a free country, etc, so they arrested his ass. At one point, he tweeted that the singer was there now, signing as we speak, causing the crowds to surge forward bowling over police and barricades trying to get in. So yeah, also, to all the idiots saying the crowds wouldn't have brought their fucking phones...brilliant guys, brilliant, but apparently they did, because within seconds they went from mostly contained to riot mode...

Re:Dark Ages

[dmmiller2k]

Presumes those that have a mobile twitter solution would respond to it during a riot, too.

Bozo Arrest!

[b4upoo]

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.

Re:Bozo Arrest!

[Reziac]

I seem to recall that some places DO require citizens to report certain incidents -- accidents, crimes, I forget what all. But I see it as the same sort of thing, unconstitutional because free speech also means freedom FROM being forced to speak. Whether it's the right, smart, and/or sane thing to do is a different issue.

Re:Bozo Arrest!

[yorktown]

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.

In 1999, California passed a law that makes it illegal not to report a witness crime if the victim is 14 and under. This law got attention recently when a bunch of people stood by when a high school girl was gang raped in Richmond, California. Because she was over 14, the onlookers could not be charged.

Re:Dark Ages

[Grygus]

Really, are 3,000 teenage girls too much for the police to handle?

I honestly and sincerely hope so.

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.

If you didn't vote libertarian, you ASKED FOR THIS

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:How would that work

[pal3f]

The NY Daily News, says (according to police) you were right the first time (except they didn't specify the use of twitter):

James Roppo, the senior vice president of sales at Island Def Jam Records, sent out Internet messages to over 3,000 fans that Justin Bieber was signing autographs even after police dispersed the crowd, cops said.

Re:How would that work

[tomhudson]

The mall operators (and the cops - there's always cops at these events) let the place get filled well beyond capacity.

The quickest way would have been to have people at each exit simultaneously start rumours that the guy is outside that particular exit. The cops could have even done that themselves - they have handi-talkies. "He can't get in so he's doing his thing in the parking lot. Please don't all be trying to get outside at the same time, okay?" then let them run out.

Re:How would that work

[theguru]

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.

Re:How would that work

[SleazyRidr]

I come from a country where police have powers to keep the peace.

Re:How would that work

[clone53421]

James Roppo, the senior vice president of sales at Island Def Jam Records, sent out Internet messages to over 3,000 fans that Justin Bieber was signing autographs even after police dispersed the crowd, cops said.

In that case, [Citation needed] on them.

What account was this Roppo guy using, anyway... he was supposedly tweeting but clearly wasn’t using Bieber’s.

Re:Dark Ages

[KC7JHO]

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).

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

[pal3f]

As a more sensationalist/gossip-y paper, I certainly wouldn't put up any of my own money that they're right. But there's no reason to think they got it wrong.

Re:How would that work

[FrigBot]

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.

Re:How would that work

[clone53421]

Meanwhile, the exec was still tweeting telling people no no no, it's still on, bring your friends!

Using what Twitter account? Please link me to it if you find it, because I’m curious. Does anybody really follow the senior VP of the record label for the celebrity they’re going to see?

Re:How would that work

[Phil_At_NHS]

"You're obligated to comply with a lawful order from a police officer. " The 1st Amendment makes that request 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." Sorry, No. The cops can open their mouths and say whatever they want, they CAN NOT COMPEL others to speak. To do so is to violate thier constitutional rights. They are gonna get sued, and they are gonna lose.

Re:How would that work

[Anonymous Coward]

#gulag

Re:How would that work

[bjourne]

Dude, your joke is getting stale.

Re:How would that work

[clone53421]

Silly AC, only registered users get mod points!

Re:How would that work

[guyfawkes-11-5]

Just as some background, Roosevelt Field Mall is less than 10 miles away from where the Walmart employee was trampled to death last year during the Black Friday bumrush in Valley Stream. Both towns are served by the same (Nassau county) PD. Im sure lessons learned from last year informed their decision to shut the event down.

Re:How would that work

[jayme0227]

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?

Re:How would that work

[Anonymous Coward]

>> one apple could spoil the whole bunch.

That's what I have been saying, but keep getting modded to oblivion by Apple fanbois.

Re:How would that work

[annodomini]

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.

Re:How would that work

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they have proportional fonts in your country?

Re:Dark Ages

[Actually, I do RTFA]

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?

He does use twitter, and everyone in the crowd (to a significant percentage) was already subscribing.

This also some how assumes every single person in the crowd has some mobile twitter solution configured as well which is entirely ignorant.

Again, they (to a significant percentage) did

If the law officers don't understand anything even a little they shouldn't be allowed to take actions based on their ignorance.

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.

Re:How would that work

[Memroid]

"Vee haf vays of making you tweet."

I believe the correct spelling is "tveet."

Re:How would that work

[Dishevel]

Wooot! So. Where exactly do the gestapo still exist?

Re:How would that work

[clone53421]

Some of the posts he makes are real gems, but he should take it down a notch. We don’t need a pizza analogy in every story. That would be like ordering pineapple on every pizza. It’s good with canadian bacon, but with an olive-mushroom pizza? Ugh.

Oh fuck, I think it’s contagious...

Re:How would that work

[flyneye]

tweet : Hey everybody these guys are dressed as cops for a movie shot and need the crowd to overtake them so I can get away. I'll sign autographs later at **** bar down the street.

          (o.k. that wouldn't work, but it's still fun to think of)

Re:Dark Ages

[realityimpaired]

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.

Re:How would that work

[clone53421]

Oblivion? I hear it tastes just like Red Bull.

Re:How would that work

[clone53421]

So it was the same group of idiots? That explains a lot, actually.

Re:How would that work

[GryMor]

Then they should do that, rather than attempting to compel someone else to do their job for them, especially when it seems that someone was the wrong person (the mob's "target" did tweet that he wasn't being allowed in and that the event was canceled)

* disclaimer, I'm going off of TFA and the links off the TFA, if the quotes and timelines presented are materially wrong (such as, the alternately presented scenario involving the exec tweeting that the event was still on when it was already canceled) I'd support the charges described, but not the TFA quoted reason for them.

Re:How would that work

[pal3f]

The whole thing is pretty unclear, and TFA just makes it worse:

Bieber’s Twitter account–presumably the one the cops wanted Roppo to use...

On what basis is Kafka/AllThingsD making this presumption? Nothing else I've seen "presumes" this.

In any case, it would seem very odd that Roppo would be in a position, having been arrested, to tweet "...the police have already arrested one person from my camp..."

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".

Re:How would that work

[flyneye]

He was just another butthole from the music industry. I guess you could say he is on the wrong side of the mafIAA. That would make whatever a concerned citizen wanted to do with a deer rifle and scope right. (o.k. thats angry talk, but it would've dispersed the crowd as well, so do two rights make a wrong?) Makes ya think, donut?

Re:How would that work

[MobyDisk]

[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?

Re:How would that work

[Pyrion]

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

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?

Re:How would that work

[clone53421]

Nothing else I’ve seen cites Twitter as its source. Not even when making claims about what was Tweeted, which supposedly caused the riot.

Just “he was tweeting”.

If anybody finds the account that Roppo was using, link it here.

Re:How would that work

[Pyrion]

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.

Police Responsibility

[WED Fan]

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

Re:Police Responsibility

[clone53421]

Wrong. First, speak to the article:

He did tweet. He tweeted twice.

derp.

Re:Police Responsibility

[Jake Griffin]

"I Am A Federal Law Enforcement Officer"... actually the abbreviation is FLEO, I just guessed at the IAA

Re:Police Responsibility

[Coren22]

My guess is I am a federal law enforcement officer, as LEO is law enforcement officer.

Re:Police Responsibility

[jmickle]

obama....

Re:Police Responsibility

[BluBrick]

I think he's a fucking law enforcement officer.

Re:Police Responsibility

[fractoid]

LEO is low earth orbit. That, or Loss of Electrons is Oxidation. (Gain of Electrons is Reduction. LEO goes GER, see? It's clever, like 'grr', see?)

Re:Police Responsibility

[AnotherUsername]

The only thing I can think of would be:

I am a former law enforcement officer.

Re:Police Responsibility

[scream at the sky]

I Am A Fucking Legally Enraged Officer? Best I got, sorry...

Re:How would that work

[Pyrion]

They could also order the mob to leave. What are the chances that they tried that first, it failed, so they got lazy and arrested the source of their attention rather than arrest the mob?

Re:How would that work

[Pyrion]

Isn't telling them to leave the job of the police? Shit, anyone who gets conscripted into doing a cop's job should get combat pay and benefits.

Re:How would that work

[pal3f]

Eaxctly. And as you said, who among that crowd would have been following Roppo anyway? Bieber, yes. Roppo, um no. It's hard to imagine that Roppo could have added anything at all to police efforts even had he fully and happily complied.

Best outcome for VP

[Reformed Lurker]

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...

Re:How would that work

[jedidiah]

The beauty of claims of this kind is that they should be available for everyone (especially prospective jurors) to see. If this guy really was making an ass of himself, then he was doing it in a spectacularly public fashion that will remain documented possibly until the end of time.

This nonsense might continue to clutter online databases well into the 24th century...

It was worth it.

[burris]

Never heard of this Justin guy until this. Any publicity is good publicity... I'm sure the exec will get a bonus.

Large crowd gets dangerous,

[Josh04]

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.

Re:Dark Ages

[jedidiah]

> 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.

Re:How would that work

[clone53421]

FWIW, he wasn’t using the Island Def Jam Records’ Twitter account, either. (Unless he deleted the tweets?)

Re:How would that work

[clone53421]

Update: Found Island Def Jam Records’ Twitter. No sign of any tweets about the event.

Re:How would that work

[Steve Franklin]

I don't use my mod points. Modding doesn't prove anything. As for the cop involved, he should be required to either eat a raw pigeon every day for a year or go to prison for 10 years. When will they stop hiring cops who are anal retentive?

Re:How would that work

[digitalunity]

What you're advocating would have prevented Martin Luther King from participating in peaceful demonstrations.

The courts have extended first amendment freedom of speech rights to mean a lot of wonky things. Unless this guy was intentionally inciting a riot, I believe any court would protect his right to exist as freedom of speech at its most basic essence.

If you're saying the police can tell people where to go because they are building up a crowd, you give them the right to silence political dissent. Years ago there was quite an uproar because at a major political event in Minneapolis, peaceful protesters were physically partitioned away from the cameras and politicians. You can call this a slippery slope fallacy all you want-it's pretty logical.

Re:How would that work

[Derosian]

Unless an officer tells you to do something illegal, kill someone, steal something. You are required by law to do what they say. Except for specific cases where you have the right to not comply. This does not seem like one of those specific cases.

Goody! Let me guess!

[Mathinker]

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!)

Re:Goody! Let me guess!

[WED Fan]

In this case: I am a former law enforcement officer.

Sorry for the confusion. Move along.

Re:How would that work

[Trails]

You are incorrect! There is no 5th amendment in Canada. We only got up to four.

We keep trying to write a 5th, but we get bogged down in all the superfluous "u"'s and keep having to stand up whenever the Queen walks by. Chip chip chirrah!

Well

[SmallFurryCreature]

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.

Re:How would that work

[pal3f]

I found an @IslandRecords, which has 1 tweet on the subject:

# Wanna meet @JustinBieber?? Get the details now- http://bit.ly/4DRUmb
2:41 PM Nov 19th from TweetDeck

But that's all I've seen. What happens if someone delete tweets (I don't do twitter)? Does it leave a notice of deletion?

Re:How would that work

[clone53421]

I’ve eaten pigeon before. It was quite tasty. Not raw, though. Not too sure about raw...

Yes, we’re drifting offtopic. He started it!

Re:How would that work

[pal3f]

See below -- maybe he used @IslandRecords ? It has one tweet on bieber.

Re:How would that work

[clone53421]

I’m sure it varies by jurisdiction; why don’t you google it? Add your city/state to that search and see if you can come up with more region-specific information.

Re:How would that work

[brkello]

Ahh, why do you have to spoil things with facts. Slashdotters love to bash cops. No matter what good they do, the one bad experience they had with one once means the whole force is corrupt and working as government spies.

Re:How would that work

[Beardo the Bearded]

I just apply "under-rated" to the first five posts in a thread I don't care about. It's much easier than actually modding and you don't get meta-modded for under/over.

I also try to mod up trolls. It makes /. a much better place.

Re:How would that work

[MobyDisk]

meh, lots of Yahoo answers, ask.com, and forums. I guess I hoped someone here would know better. Maybe could cite court cases.

Re:How would that work

[Beardo the Bearded]

The son-of-a-bitch only posts at lunchtime. Come on, man, some of us can't have pizza every day!

Re:How would that work

[Beardo the Bearded]

That would have been an awesome response.

Re:How would that work

[Pyrion]

It was a rhetorical question, not meant to be answered.

Re:How would that work

[clone53421]

Wow, hey, I just re-read that and realised PizzaAnalogyGuy made a really good point, but hid it so well that nobody seems to have noticed it.

Translation:
It was almost like a PR stunt. Draw a big crowd, make a huge disturbance, police get called, and the guy ends up getting arrested. But the record label enjoys all this publicity from it.

non-cooperation != interference

[another_larson]

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.

Re:non-cooperation != interference

[shutdown -p now]

His earlier tweets may constitute incitement to riot. I'm not sure, but under the circumstances that would have at least been plausible grounds for arrest.

My point remains, however, that the charges under which he was actually arrested don't look reasonable at all.

Re:non-cooperation != interference

[WiiVault]

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.

Census workers and police officers looking to serve warrents often have dogs "sicked" on them. Sure its dumb as hell, but we are talking my birthplace here and stupid is a huge part of our culture.

Re:non-cooperation != interference

[evil_aar0n]

Dogs, probably. It's conceivable that a home-owner would unleash his german shepherd - or what have you - on you if you came to arrest him.

Re:How would that work

[thickdiick]

4 out of 5 scientists agree that most mobs are caused by individuals walking or running to a common place and acting upon their own volition.

1 of 5 scientsts still believes that one person can magically cause a mob to gather.

You should probably lay off the Harry Potter.

Re:How would that work

[clone53421]

Well, /. is just sooo full of laywers! ;)

But anyway, like I said, every jurisdiction probably has its own laws about this.

For instance, search for "lawful order" (including the quotes) in the Kansas City Code of Ordinances.

Re:How would that work

[clone53421]

No, but a subpoena could probably be issued to force Twitter to disclose deleted tweets.

Re:How would that work

[flyneye]

Not so sure,now that I've thought about it. This was a Record company V.P. Which makes him just another leech like the RIAA. I retract my vote and instead paint the scenario where he makes a furtive movement and the cops descend on him with night sticks, teargas the crowd (comprised mostly of gangsta rap , no belt, crotch scratchin crowd) and fill the paddy wagons with the culturally challenged.

Re:How would that work

[shutdown -p now]

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.

If guy was causing public disorder by his actions, then they should have arrested him for those actions ("incitement to riot"? "disturbance of public peace"? I don't know what the relevant laws for that kind of thing you have over there).

Re:How would that work

[shutdown -p now]

"Whether intentionally or not, your words and actions have incited this group and we're worried it's going to turn violent. Ask them to leave or at least remain peaceful." That's a lawful order. At this point, not complying with the request to disperse the crowd is akin to admitting that they're there because you want them to be, which is inciting to riot.

It would make sense, actually, but they didn't charge him with inciting to riot.

stop!

[frank_carmody]

Anything you tweet can, and will, be used against you!

Re:How would that work

[KraftDinner]

I'm still confused.... when does the pizza come?

Re:How would that work

[Kreigaffe]

I almost jumped down your throat about the police not being involved with the Walmart incident, but then I realized the idiots you were referring to were the crowd-folk.

It's not often I see a post that involves police and idiots and doesn't lump them into one catagory

Really?

[Mashiki]

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.

Re:Really?

[niftymitch]

Refusing to help is not the same as acting as the agent of and as an anonymous agent at that.
If I was speaking at a rally what I say is protected by free speech (within those limits) and more importantly I am responsible for what I say.
Further should I be compelled to say something "anonymous" for the police and someone gets injured as a result, am I responsible?
--------
i.e. how is forcing me to say something into a microphone any different than forcing me to Tweet..

Re:Really?

[Mashiki]

If you're told by the police to do something, and you have no reasonable cause not to do so. You're obstructing in the duty and the right to properly control the scene which happened in this case.

Re:How would that work

[Jane Q. Public]

No, it isn't. The police would be within their legaly authority to tell him to STOP "inciting a riot" via Twitter. They have absolutely no authority to force him to help disperse the crowd, via Twitter or any other means.

For one thing, he has no legal authority to make the crowd disperse. The police do, however, if it is an actual riot.

Where did all these U.S. citizens get the idea that they are required to do whatever a policeman says? The very concept is bizarre. Downright ludicrous.

(I know that not everyone here is from the U.S., but a lot are, and some of them obviously have a very weird view of how the law is supposed to work.)

Crowded theater?

[WidgetGuy]

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.

Re:How would that work

[Jane Q. Public]

You are completely out of your mind. The ONLY time I am required by law to do what an officer tells me is when he is detaining me on suspicion or arresting me for probable cause. (Other than ordering me to stop breaking the law, of course. That part is a given.)

Just about anything else, and your Constitution basically allows you to say "Pardon me, but I'll be on my way now." and leave. Man, do you have it backward. There are no "specific cases" where you have the right to not comply. Rather, there are only a few "specific cases" in which they can tell you what to do at all.

read between the lines

[AlgorithMan]

he hindered their crowd-control efforts [...] police wanted the man to send a tweet

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...

Re:How would that work

[anyGould]

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on point of view), it's not illegal to be a douche.

Slashdot titles = trolling, news at 11.

[aaandre]

The title says it all, feels like /. editors are boldly crossing into Troll-landia.

Re:How would that work

[anyGould]

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 it would be an admission that he had some measure of control over the group, which could then be used against him.

Re:How would that work

[anyGould]

Heck, why not arrest the members of said mob rather than arrest the target of the mob's attention?

That's an easy question. What cop is going to start arresting suburban teenage girls? This will blow over in a day or so (my guess: charges will be dropped, exec gets a bonus for super publicity, matter gets dropped). If they'd arrested a few dozen teeny-boppers? You'd just be substituting unruly teens for unruly parents.

Re:How would that work

[anyGould]

I'd be curious what the list of "specific cases" is. Does it include "incriminate yourself" or "sign this confession"?

Re:If you didn't vote libertarian, you ASKED FOR T

[Explodicle]

There are other parties besides the Libertarians who are against a police state. It's about damn time we end this three-party system!

Re:How would that work

[Pyrion]

So instead what, the rioters get a free pass and the knowledge that they can riot pretty much anytime they damn well please knowing they won't be held accountable for their actions? Yeah, that's productive.

Re:How would that work

[Pyrion]

And either way, this would blow over. Arrest the rioters, let them calm down in jail for a couple hours, and then release them sans charges. Let the parents get unruly, if they riot, they get to go through the same process. Although maybe as adults, there could actually be some criminal charges filed, since the whole "mob mentality" thing doesn't give them the right to act like spoiled children throwing a temper tantrum when they don't get their way.

Re:How would that work

[easyTree]

Or are everyone actually having twitter "on" all the time in mobile phone?

I suspect pizza analogy guy is a lolcat.

There's a typo in the title

[tool462]

It should read: "Man arrested for being a twat"

Re:How would that work

[easyTree]

Please. Once there's more than three of them, it's a herd. Baaa (flock?)

Re:How would that work

[Pyrion]

True, but aren't herds of sheep quite well controlled with exposure to dogs?

Re:How would that work

[easyTree]

So, something which is able to move much faster than the flock and threatens unpleasantness should they move in the wrong direction?

I think *they* have that covered already.

Re:How would that work

[dondelelcaro]

First, he DID cause the mob to gather. He was hosting a concert. He did not, however, ask the mob to become unruly.

Since he may very well have been negligent in starting the event by failing to provide for sufficient security et al., he may well be contributing to the unruliness of the mob.

Second, asking someone to refrain from committing a crime is not akin to admitting that you caused them to start committing a crime.

A police officer having someone tell someone else to stop committing a crime because the police officer believes the person committing a crime is an associate of the person they ask to stop may be admitting to a crime. Talking to a police officer or making admissions or statements without the advice of your attorney is a bad idea.

Of course, taking my advice without talking to an attorney isn't such a hot idea either.

Re:How would that work

[cyberstealth1024]

They could also order the mob to leave. What are the chances that they tried that first, it failed, so they got lazy and arrested the source of their attention rather than arrest the mob?

100%

Re:How would that work

[cyberstealth1024]

Duh...the proportional fonts have been locked up in the dungeon!

Re:How would that work

[Pyrion]

That's what I figured too.

They would've been well within their rights to arrest everyone involved. Charges need not necessarily be filed - the rioters could cool off in jail for a couple hours and then be released sans charges, while those responsible for inciting the riot and anyone stupid enough to get violent with officers would face charges.

Re:How would that work

[jpmorgan]

However, police serve multiple roles, only one of which is law enforcement. When there is a real threat to life or limb (such as during a riot or an emergency), they take on additional 'community caretaker' roles and the scope of 'lawful order' increases dramatically.

Police powers are circumstantial; if they weren't we wouldn't have concepts such as 'abuse of power.' And that's the reasons we have a court system and judicial oversight.

Re:How would that work

[jpmorgan]

I think you'll find that if the situation qualifies as a 'public emergency' cops can order you to do a lot of things. Lack of central authority in crises and emergencies is how things get out of hand. The law recognizes that, when the shit hits the fan, sometimes somebody just needs to be in charge.

Re:How would that work

[jpmorgan]

That sounds like a good way to start a stampede and get people trampled, to me.

There's always a solution which is simple, elegant, and wrong.

Re:How would that work

[Derosian]

Hmmm, this could have been the way I worded the question to the officer or may have been in the line of the specific officer knowing what he had in right to order me to do. When I questioned an officer if I must obey him if he is giving me an order according to the law he told me, yes. What is your source?

Re:If you didn't vote libertarian, you ASKED FOR T

[westlake]

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

Re:How would that work

[yurtinus]

While I completely agree he is well within his rights to say "no" to the request and disagree with his arrest (at least with the information I could clean from TFA linked in TF blog), I definitely feel that in this case the police were being prudent in asking him to send out the message to go home. The crowd was unruly and becoming dangerous (TFA noted several people going to the hospital for minor injuries)-- and while the police do have means of dispersing crowds, they are considerably more likely to cause injury.

Just because the police were wrong here doesn't make him right.

Re:How would that work

[Joe U]

So if the cop says,"tell them to ....

No, not here and not ever. You can't be ordered to say something, it violates so many basics of the US legal system it's sad to think someone would think otherwise.

 

Re:How would that work

[ironjaw33]

So it was the same group of idiots? That explains a lot, actually.

The police or the crowd?

Re:How would that work

[Shadow of Eternity]

CITIZEN, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO INFORM THE MOB OF REBELS THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH THE AUTHORITIES!

Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

Re:How would that work

[anyGould]

So instead what, the rioters get a free pass and the knowledge that they can riot pretty much anytime they damn well please knowing they won't be held accountable for their actions? Yeah, that's productive.

Didn't say it was a good idea. Or even that I agreed with it.

Frankly, it shows the police to be pretty incompetent in general. But it doesn't surprise me that no-one on the scene was willing to take the PR hit involved.

Re:How would that work

[fractoid]

I come from a country where police have powers to keep the peace.

Which country, precisely, would that be?

Re:How would that work

[fractoid]

You are completely out of your mind. The ONLY time I am required by law to do what an officer tells me is when he is detaining me on suspicion or arresting me for probable cause. (Other than ordering me to stop breaking the law, of course. That part is a given.)

In fact, in a sense, even then. He can politely ask you to discontinue your lawbreaking, which you'd be well served to do because his other option is to arrest you.

At least, that's how I understand the law. Any lawyers care to confirm/deny?

Re:How would that work

[fractoid]

Which is a pity because with a law like that, they could repeal 90% of other laws. Most laws, when they come down to it, fall into the category of "Don't be a douche in "

Re:How would that work

[tomhudson]

That's why I wrote at each entrance simultaneously - this way, only a fraction goes through each entrance - a lot safer than having them all try to go out one exit :-)

Re:How would that work

[mdmkolbe]

You're obliged to comply with a lawful order: true

What constitutes a lawful order? (Honest question; I'd really like to know.) If a cop tells me to cross to the other side of the street is that a lawful order? What if he tells me to hand him my cell phone? What if he tells me to unlock the door to a private building(*) for which they don't have a warrant?

If "lawful order" means "an order to do something that is lawful", then it's pretty broad and would include all of the above. If it's sometime more restrictive, then what is the line?

(*) I've actually had this happen to me.

Re:How would that work

[mdmkolbe]

But "Tell them to leave" is not a lawful order from a police officer

Where do I find a definition of what are and what are not lawful orders? People like to throw that term around but I've never been able to find an official definition.

Re:How would that work

[CoyoteNZ]

That's why the singer wasn't allowed in, and had to leave, and that's why he tweeted that. Meanwhile, the exec was still tweeting telling people no no no, it's still on, bring your friends!

Cool, they may as well also throw in a charge of false advertising, as he was there for promotion, so if he was lying about the fact, that is false advertising. I assume you can be fined for that in the states, as you can in New Zealand.

Re:How would that work

[R2.0]

You are focusing on the police asking him to help out, and buying TFP's position that this "caused" his arrest. But the guy had already DONE the acts for which he was arrested. The police were asking him to try to fix the situation. He refused, as was his right. And then he was arrested. So, was the logical equivalent "If you don't help, you'll be arrested" or "If you help, you won't be arrested." And no, they aren't the same.

Here's a different example. When I was a kid we were drinking and driving (hey, I didn't say I was a smart kid), and we got into a verbal confrontation with another car. We pulled into a back lot of a mall, and got out of our vehicles. Words were exchanged, but it didn't escalate. The other car left, and one of my group threw a beer can at the car as it was leaving. Then the flashing lights come on. As the cop (who was sitting in the lot watching the whole thing) was ticketing us for underage drinking, he said "You know, I was going to let you go until your friend got cute." Did we get tickets because he threw the can? No - we got them because we were underage and drinking. But we wouldn't have had to face the consequences of our illegal act but for being stupid.

Or, a favorite line from a favorite band:

I woke up in a Soho doorway
A policeman knew my name
He said "You can go sleep at home tonight
If you can get up and walk away"

Re:How would that work

[ktappe]

You're obligated to comply with a lawful order from a police officer.

Of course you are; that is not the question. The question is whether this order was lawful.

Let's say the officer decided that the best way to disperse the mob was to order the executive to pay the people cash to leave the premises. Would the executive then be worthy of arrest for not complying? Almost everyone would say no, but then the onus is on anyone supporting his non-Tweeting-arrest to describe the difference between the two situations. That is, why is an officer, wanting to disperse a crowd, allowed to order someone to Tweet but not allowed to order them to pay the crowd off (assuming both actions would have equal efficacy.)

(And, in fact, it seems to me the monetary order is less of an intrusion on a person's civil rights than forcing speech they would not have uttered. Let's say his Tweet unexpectedly caused a stampede; he could be sued for that Tweet. Further, his 1st amendment rights to speak [or NOT speak] have been trampled here.)

Re:How would that work

[tomhudson]

Note:
1. They can always ask - but that's not the same as an order.
2. They also have guns, tasers, and pepper spray so you might want to keep that in consideration.
3. There are always exceptions, YMMV, etc.

Cops generally can't order you to do something that they themselves are not allowed to do, such as your example of unlocking the door to a private building for which they don't have a warrant. They DO have the right to enter without a warrant in some limited cases, in which case they can order you to (but not just because they think someone *might* be inside or something illegal *might* be going on - that's not even "probable" cause). They also can't order you to do something that puts your life and/or safety at undue risk.

Your cell phone, laptop, wallet, purse - warrant, please (exceptions: international borders). ID? Depends on the circumstances. Traffic stop? Sure. DWB or WWB (Driving or Walking While Black)? No.

Cross to the other side of the street? Generally, yes, because that's traffic control and public order - unless the cops are beating on someone and don't want witnesses, in which case, no.

Order you to open the trunk of your car? Generally, not unless they've stopped you for something else, or it's obvious something is wrong (suspension too low, trail of blood). They can always ASK, you can refuse. If you agree, anything they see is fair game. If, however, you agreed only because you felt threatened by them and a reasonable person would feel the same in similar circumstances, and there's a problem, then you can try to have it declared an illegal search.

It's always a judgment call. If they're nice about it, and there seems to be a legitimate reason, why be a dickhead? If, on the other hand, they're just being dickheads, why encourage them? Exception: The minute you hear "if you don't have anything to hide" - REFUSE. You may think you did nothing wrong, may be minding your own business and not have a clue, but they don't see it that way, and they're out to nail you for something. Be polite in your refusal, but refuse. "Guys, I don't have anything to hide, but those magic words tell me that you're on a fishing expedition, and I'm simply not comfortable with that. Until I know what's really going on here, the answer is no. Please call your supervisor, because I want to discuss this with him or her. In person."

Re:How would that work

[tomhudson]

The problem is, he wasn't the one doing anything illegal. He didn't break the law - the mall owners, by agreeing to this and then allowing in way more people than the legal capacity of the place, and clearly with inadequate crowd control, did. So your example doesn't really work.

Re:How would that work

[gmhowell]

They can't order you to open your trunk. In the US, at least, the only area they can search without either your permission or a court order (or a few other things) is the area under your immediate control.

Here is part of an excellent video by the ACLU regarding such matters.

Re:How would that work

[gmhowell]

I stand corrected. It looks like the video is not from the ACLU, but rather from FlexYourRights.

Re:How would that work

[Seahawk]

So you think it should be perfectly legal to run into a crowd and scream "BOMB!!! HE HAS A BOMB!!!!" While you start running away with your arms flailing?

Not that THAT was the case here, but there ARE limits to "freedom of speech". You CAN say what ever you want but if what you so directly endangers the lives of others I sure hope you will be arrested.

Re:How would that work

[somersault]

BadAnalogyGuy seemed to stop making bad analogies recently and just started making insightful yet vaguely flamebaity posts. I prefer the pizza analogies, though I fail to see the actual analogy in this one. It's like some guy started making this really awesome pepperoni and green pepper pizza, cooked it to perfection, then forgot to actually eat it.

Re:How would that work

[bluewolfcub]

This is almost like a new pizza place would open in the town square and people would be lining to try it out.

No, it's almost like you don't know how to use the conditional tense correctly. http://www.usingenglish.com/articles/english-conditionals-an-introduction.html

Re:How would that work

[PMuse]

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.

Can they convict him of something for NOT tweeting "It's canceled; go home"? Probably not. And an arrest based on that inaction was probably illegal.

Can they convict him of something for sending his earlier tweets of "It's still on; everyone come in"? Quite possibly, yes.

Imagine a policeman yelling into a megaphone to tell a crowd to disperse while the exec yells into a bigger megaphone to tell the crowd to increase. Good luck convincing a judge that inciting a mob via tweets is less effective that inciting one by shouting.

Of course, with good lawyering, he may still walk.

what BS

[hesaigo999ca]

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.

Re:How would that work

[johndiii]

One news source (here) has him continuing to tweet that the event was still on after the police and/or mall tried to shut it down. If that is the case (I can't speak for the reliability of that source, though it does seem a more plausible scenario), then the police were not acting improperly when they arrested him. They might have offered him the opportunity to tweet a cancellation to avoid arrest in that scenario.

The problem is that everyone seems to have seized on the "arrested for not tweeting" story, so no one appears to have actually checked the Twitter feeds and the timeline of what happened. It would be nice to have some actual facts about what happened, rather that "OMG! Arrested for not tweeting!"

Re:How would that work

[tomhudson]

That's why I wrote that, in general, they can't. There are obvious exceptions - like someone shouting from inside the trunk, but how often does that happen (outside of drunken college parties)?

Re:How would that work

[Will.Woodhull]

The obligation extends only to lawful orders, with the key here being whether a condition existed, such as hazardous situation, where it was lawful for a cop to make the demand.

The cops are claiming that there was an imminent public safety concern with regard to the crowd's unruliness. In their OPINION, the crowd's behavior was becoming unruly to the point of being dangerous.

Others who have skills in assessing a crowd's state may have had different opinions. It is reasonable to assume that a recording company executive would also have expertise in assessing a crowd's behavior and potential for unsafe behavior. And would probably be more familiar with this kind of crowd than the cops involved.

Should the organizers of a peaceful political protest tell their crowd to disperse because the nice police officers have said that it is beginning to rain and somebody might catch the flu and die of it? That hazard definitely exists... and that kind of cooperation with the nice policemen would definitely make for less turmoil in the world...

I just don't feel that I have enough information about the situation to know whether the cops' actions were appropriate or whether the recording executives behavior was inappropriate. But since the guy did not tweet and there is nothing in the story that I saw that indicated anyone got hurt or anybody's property was damaged, I lean toward thinking that the cops were wrong in this case.

Re:How would that work

[iamhassi]

"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 exec incited a riot, then refused to tell rioters to disband. How is that "nothing wrong"?

If you owned a mall and 3,000 screaming teenagers showed up for nothing you'd want them to leave too before they caused any damage. I'm sure the police wasn't staffed to handle 3,000 rioters that day (3,000 according to this article and see the video) and they were asking for assistance from the riot organizers, those that started the riot, to tell them to disband.

When he refused he was charged. Makes sense to me, even without a car analogy.

Re:How would that work

[clone53421]

The crowd, but I can see how it might have been unclear.

Re:Dark Ages

[Actually, I do RTFA]

OK then... provide us a list of those tweets?

Sure

Re:How would that work

[Jane Q. Public]

I can certainly agree with that. While the police are withing their rights to ask him, he has the right to refuse. But in this case, it does not seem that refusal was a very intelligent or responsible thing to do.

Re:How would that work

[Jane Q. Public]

You would probably be hard-pressed to find any officer who would answer "no" to that question, even though the answer is no.

I am tempted to answer that my source is the U.S. Constitution, and 200+ years of court precedent, but that still really isn't much of an answer. Here are a couple of good places for info on that sort of thing:

The Flex Your Rights Foundation

On that page are 4 short videos that cover what to do in police encounter situations. They also have a longer, 45 minute DVD available that includes all those short segments and I believe some other material too. The first of the 5 videos on that page is also interesting, and gives some background of the organization. But while I am at it, I can tell you one of their own biggest sources of information: the ACLU. They are also in the process of producing a new movie called "10 Rules for Dealing with the Police".

There is also an excellent video called "Don't Talk to Cops", done by an attorney and an ex-police officer. You can watch it on YouTube:

Don't Talk To Cops, Part 1

Don't Talk To Cops, Part 2

Re:How would that work

[Steve Franklin]

I don't metamoderate either. Might as well take a bucket and try to empty out the Atlantic Ocean.

Re:How would that work

[Derosian]

Thank you for the enlightening links... Changed my view on whether I should talk to police officers or not.

Re:How would that work

[Jane Q. Public]

As an addendum, here is a brief summary.

First, I really do recommend that DVD to people who do not already know their rights backward and forward. It could save you a lot of money and grief, for only $20. And watch that "Don't Talk To Cops" video. It is very informative.

If a policeman is attempting to physically detain or arrest you, do not resist. You could be convicted of resisting arrest even if the arrest is not legal in the first place. (That is completely unjust, but it has been known to happen.)

The laws vary from state to state, but it is possible to summarize how the law works in most states:

You are generally not required to show ID to a police officer except in certain circumstances, such as if you are pulled over while driving a motor vehicle, or if a crime has been committed and you are a suspect (for example, the quickstop a block away was just robbed, you match the description of the robber, and you are seen walking down the street a block away). Again in general, you are not required to identify yourself to a police officer simply because he asked. There are a few states, however, where this is not so. Check your state law. ACLU is a good place to ask these things.

If a police officer has probable cause to arrest you, you are required to identify yourself and you should do so. At that point, lying to the police can get you in a lot of trouble. However, other than your identity (similar to Geneva convention rules), you are NOT required by law to say ANYTHING else. Period. Regardless of what anybody else tells you or what an officer tries to get you to believe. Other than identification you have an ABSOLUTE right to be silent. End of that story.

In some states an officer can detain you temporarily on "reasonable suspicion" (as opposed to probable cause, this is a looser standard). Again, you are probably required to identify yourself in those circumstances. But in a lot of states, detention (defined as limiting your ability to leave or do other things) and arrest are virtually identical according to the law.

However, again to summarize: if you are just walking down the street, or participating in some kind of public event (like a concert or even a peaceful protest), in the vast majority of states you are not required to show ID or otherwise identify yourself to the police.

Police are trained to "take control" of situations and use language designed to get you to cooperate. But that does not necessarily mean you are required to respond. At any time you may ask "Am I free to go now?", and that is one of the rare questions a police officer can get in a lot of trouble for lying about. If you are not being arrested (or legally detained), then the answer is ALWAYS "yes". You are free to walk away. The only time an officer can order you to do something, and you are required to comply (other than showing ID in the circumstances described), is when you are being arrested or legally detained. Other than that, you ARE free to leave. You are not legally required to obey any other orders or instructions.

Now, having stated all that, I must say this: there are a lot of circumstances in which it would be a very good idea to do what the police officer has asked you to do, even if you are not legally required. But only you can make that determination, depending on circumstances. In other words, don't be stupid. If there is gunfire going on and a police officer tells you to "get down", you are not legally required to do so... but it would be dumb not to.

Re:How would that work

[mitashki]

Say uncle!...Ops noo... Tweet uncle!

Re:How would that work

[Beardo the Bearded]

I see meta-moderating as more like this:

http://images.google.ca/images?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=darth%20vader%20brita&lr=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

Re:How would that work

[Steve Franklin]

The Yakuza has an atom bomb? Does Hillary know about this?

Re:How would that work

[Steve Franklin]

Or Barry O'Bomb-a?

Re:How would that work

[clone53421]

Actually his point was that it was a publicity stunt. It’s pretty unsurprising that you didn’t get it, though, because it took me several readings before I finally figured that out.

You get all the people to come, send them away empty-handed, and profit from what they left behind (notoriety, not pizza).