Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Police Arrest Man For Refusing To Tweet

Posted by samzenpus on from the when-they-say-tweet-you-better-tweet dept.

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.'"

99 of 550 comments (clear)

  1. Re:How would that work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So what are you basically saying?

  2. Sounds like an open-and-shut false-arrest case. by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Informative

    n/t

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:Sounds like an open-and-shut false-arrest case. by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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).

    2. Re:Sounds like an open-and-shut false-arrest case. by JStegmaier · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Sounds like an open-and-shut false-arrest case. by ElKry · · Score: 4, Insightful

      (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.

    4. Re:Sounds like an open-and-shut false-arrest case. by selven · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    5. Re:Sounds like an open-and-shut false-arrest case. by dcollins · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    6. Re:Sounds like an open-and-shut false-arrest case. by Romancer · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --


      ) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
      ) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
    7. Re:Sounds like an open-and-shut false-arrest case. by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The only thing that courts might have to decide is if the police can compel you to say something for the public safety (the 1st amendment doesn't protect your right to say things that endanger the public, so I don't see why they shouldn't be able to force you to tell a dangerous crowd to disperse).

      Actually, the first amendment should also prevent the government from coercing someone to speak; while in this case it may be "a good idea to make him say something" that's a slippry slope to head down. Of course, he should be liable (civilly and criminally) if he was resposnible for creating the conditions that resulted in teh problems. But that is different from being arrested and charged for refusing to speak.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    8. Re:Sounds like an open-and-shut false-arrest case. by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The cops suffer from Power Trip-itis, and will just arrest you for anything they can make stick. Even if the unfairly arrested citizen gets arrested tomorrow morning, the cops still are proud of themselves for having "put that citizen in his place". It boosts their ego.

      And like I said below, when a judge or other official declares the citizens falsely arrested, then the cop should have to spend equal time in jail as punishment. Maybe if cops spent more nights in jail, thus being inconvenienced, they'll be more inclined to think twice or thrice before arresting people who have done nothing wrong.

      BTW:

      The reason I'm so annoyed with cops is because I was stopped in Texas while on a cross-country trip. They wanted to search my trunk. I refused because they had no warrant or probable cause. The power trippin' cops made me stand around for an hour in the cold night air until they finally let me go. Assholes.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    9. Re:Sounds like an open-and-shut false-arrest case. by Jbabe · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    10. Re:Sounds like an open-and-shut false-arrest case. by DJRumpy · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    11. Re:Sounds like an open-and-shut false-arrest case. by ElKry · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    12. Re:Sounds like an open-and-shut false-arrest case. by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Informative

      >>>(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.
      --

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  3. Decisions, decisions... by bbbaldie · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:Decisions, decisions... by snspdaarf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The enemy of your enemy is not your friend.

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    2. Re:Decisions, decisions... by xOneca · · Score: 5, Funny

      The enemy of your enemy is you.

    3. Re:Decisions, decisions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

    4. Re:Decisions, decisions... by peater · · Score: 2, Insightful

      [Citation or car analogy needed]

    5. Re:Decisions, decisions... by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Funny

      That depends on how you define “play”.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    6. Re:Decisions, decisions... by HiThere · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy's enemy. He may well also be your enemy.

      Consider a scene from WWII. Finland. The Nazi's are supporting the valiant Finns against the Russian invader. The US is as war with the Nazi's and a (weak) ally of both Finland and Russia. Who's our friend here? Well, the Finns are. Anyone else?

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    7. Re:Decisions, decisions... by volpe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  4. Ahh Slashdot by George+Beech · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.

    1. Re:Ahh Slashdot by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Ahh Slashdot by endianx · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    3. Re:Ahh Slashdot by Reckless+Visionary · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      I think I'll stop here.
    4. Re:Ahh Slashdot by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Ahh Slashdot by TheCarp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Wow. The fact that you can even be charged for something as vague and open to interpretation as that is scary
      > regardless of the context.

      Actually... you can be CHARGED for almost anything.

      One of the facts overlooked in the Henry Gates fiasco was that.... he never broke the law, yet he was arrested.

      Its true, MA courts have ruled pretty decisively AGAINST the interpretation of "disturbing the peace" that would have allowed for him to be convicted. Over 20 years ago there was a case of a man who was told by police to leave the scene, refused. Not only refused by yelled at the officer, and gesticulated wildly with his arms while doing so.

      The courts ruled that nothing that he did, not gesticulating wildly (since it was not threatening motion, just wild passionate gesture), not refusing to leave the scene, not yelling, not because a crowd gathered. NONE of the behavior that was WELL BEYOND what Mr Gates did... NONE of it was enough to find him guilty.

      There have been several cases since then, all the same result.

      So the question, in my mind, becomes... where does the responsibility lie on the police side to actually know the law and legal precident and to apply it correctly? Shouldn't such public behavior laws be something the police know about and know how to enforce? SHouldn't they be required to at least attempt to apply the law correctly?

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

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    6. Re:Ahh Slashdot by mea37 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:Ahh Slashdot by SlashDotDotDot · · Score: 4, Funny

      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?

      --
      /...
    8. Re:Ahh Slashdot by GooberToo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    9. Re:Ahh Slashdot by SleazyRidr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The police have to do what they have to do at the time to maintain order. Sometimes police have to act quickly to prevent a situation escalating out of control. Sometimes there isn't enough time for police to look up all the revelvant law books, have a quick debate amongst themselves about the interperetation of the law, and then decide whether or not the person in question would be convicted by a jury of their peers.

      Sometimes, they just act and society rolls on, and then the whole mess is sorted out by the courts.

      --
      Is 1563649 a prime number?
    10. Re:Ahh Slashdot by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      not in a country where you have to pay your own legal fees for criminal defence, it isn't. The costs of fighting off a baseless charge for a petty offence probably exceed the cost of pleading guilty.

      --
      FGD 135
    11. Re:Ahh Slashdot by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  5. Now this is just Stupidity at its finest by ITJC68 · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:Now this is just Stupidity at its finest by lorenlal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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...

  6. old ways are still the best. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Was their bullhorn broken?

    1. Re:old ways are still the best. by CannonballHead · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  7. So... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  8. Posters here are like the teens in the vid by Puls4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Posters here are like the teens in the vid by roguetrick · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      --
      -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
    2. Re:Posters here are like the teens in the vid by roguetrick · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      --
      -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
    3. Re:Posters here are like the teens in the vid by DavidTC · · Score: 4, Insightful

      '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.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    4. Re:Posters here are like the teens in the vid by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    5. Re:Posters here are like the teens in the vid by roguetrick · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      --
      -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
  9. Re:How would that work by roguetrick · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The guy continued to send out tweets that he was signing autographs after the giant crowd dispersed. He was being an asshole and a danger to public safety to satisfy his Internet ego. Does that make what the cops did right? I dunno. But it does make him a douche.

    --
    -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
  10. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    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!

  11. Re:How would that work by roguetrick · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    --
    -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
  12. Remain calm. by Aphoxema · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oh, hay guyz I juss got a tweet saying we need to chillax and GTFO sall cool tho cuz they let us kno on twit

    --
    "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
    1. Re:Remain calm. by Aphoxema · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

      --
      "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
  13. Riotous rumor by Silentknyght · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Riotous rumor by canajin56 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
  14. Re:Dark Ages by Goaway · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What if he doesn't use twitter?

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

  15. Re:How would that work by dintlu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  16. It's a tough call.... by ikefox · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

  17. It was a near riot of teenage girls! by sugapablo · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    --
    Sugapablo
    1. Re:It was a near riot of teenage girls! by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2, Funny

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

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  18. Riot control in 140 characters or less. by gimmebeer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  19. My god, it's full of idiots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:My god, it's full of idiots... by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Funny

      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!"

  20. Crap by wkurzius · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Crap by clone53421 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  21. Re:How would that work by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Vee haf vays of making you tweet."

  22. Re:How would that work by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
  23. Re:How would that work by sopssa · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  24. seems pretty reasonable to me by SuperBanana · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

    --
    Please help metamoderate.
  25. Alternative headline: by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 4, Funny

    Cops powerless against teenage girls.

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

    --
    Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  26. Re:Not about twitter by DavidTC · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  27. Re:Dark Ages by CannonballHead · · Score: 2, Funny

    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. ;)

  28. Re:How would that work by clone53421 · · Score: 2

    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?

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  29. Re:How would that work by Critical+Facilities · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  30. Re:How would that work by clone53421 · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  31. Re:Dark Ages by JStegmaier · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  32. Re:How would that work by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  33. Re:How would that work by tverbeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But "Tell them to leave" is not a lawful order from a police officer. The police do not have the legal authority to order you to say anything. They can ask you to, just like they can ask you to let them search your house, or ask you to confess to a crime, but that's not an order.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  34. Re:How would that work by canajin56 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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...

    --
    ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
  35. Re:Dark Ages by Grygus · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    I honestly and sincerely hope so.

  36. Re:How would that work by KC7JHO · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  37. Re:How would that work by theguru · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  38. Re:How would that work by dondelelcaro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    http://www.donarmstrong.com
  39. Re:How would that work by FrigBot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  40. Re:How would that work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    #gulag

  41. Re:They got it backwards by canajin56 · · Score: 3, Informative
    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...

    --
    ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
  42. Re:How would that work by guyfawkes-11-5 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  43. Re:How would that work by jayme0227 · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    Second, asking someone to refrain from committing a crime is not akin to admitting that you caused them to start committing a crime. If that were the case, then asking someone to stop raping you would be an admission that you wanted to have sex with them in the first place. It doesn't make much sense, does it?

    --
    But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
  44. Re:How would that work by annodomini · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  45. Re:How would that work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Do they have proportional fonts in your country?

  46. Re:How would that work by Memroid · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Vee haf vays of making you tweet."

    I believe the correct spelling is "tveet."

  47. Re:How would that work by clone53421 · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  48. Re:How would that work by Critical+Facilities · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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".

  49. Re:How would that work by MobyDisk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    [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?

  50. Re:How would that work by Pyrion · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

    --
    "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
  51. Re:How would that work by Pyrion · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It doesn't make a whole lot of sense that a mob of sentient individuals cannot be held responsible for forming up into a mob and directly causing a nuisance while the target of their attention can be arrested for simply being present.

    --
    "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
  52. Police Responsibility by WED+Fan · · Score: 2, Informative

    Wrong. First, speak to the article:

    He did tweet. He tweeted twice.

    Had he not tweeted, it still wasn't his responsibility. If the crowd needs to be dispersed, it is the responsibility of the police to notify people.

    Oh, for the record:

    IAAFLEO

    --
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
  53. Re:How would that work by Pyrion · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

    --
    "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
  54. Re:First Amendment? by arielCo · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    --
    This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
  55. Re:How would that work by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 2

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

    --

    ---
    ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
  56. non-cooperation != interference by another_larson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  57. Re:How would that work by dondelelcaro · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

    --
    http://www.donarmstrong.com