Federal judge rules that police in Ferguson violated the Constitution

(CNN) -- A federal judge has ruled that police in Ferguson, Missouri, violated the Constitution when they told protesters that they had to keep walking and that they couldn't stand still.

U.S. District Judge Catherine Perry issued a preliminary injunction Monday forbidding law enforcement from carrying out the practice because "it is likely that these agencies will again apply this unconstitutional policy."

Law enforcement agencies adopted the policy on August 18, a few days after protests began following the shooting death of unarmed African-American teen Michael Brown at the hands of a white police officer.

CNN

It was my opinion the police were forcing the protesters into a forced march. You have constitutional rights to assemble, it doesn't say you must continue to keep moving. This ruling confirms that the local police in this area do/have continuously violated the constitution. Yet the Ferguson police chief Thomas Jackson still refuses to step down, he should step down for both incompetence and for willfully violating the rights of the people that live and work there.

Good.

Not just good, hella good.

I hope thye pay!

a reply to: LDragonFire

Defund the PD. Seize records. Prosecute RICO.

Great! Now a whole class action can occur where the people sue the police, and collect a payoff of their own tax money in worthless paper dollars, while the cops just keep on doing the nasty.......

a reply to: LDragonFire

IMO, this is just posturing on the judges part. These types of things have been happening for awhile and what may I ask has been done about it? Think real hard OK?

You see, it is the justice system and political class that is allowing this type of behavior by law enforcement.

Let me refresh your memory with a video from the G20 in Pittsburgh, where students at the University of Pittsburgh were protesting police brutality.



Where was the outrage then? Where were the politicians then?

Nothing will change as long as we rely on those who are in charge to fix what they created.......

a reply to: LDragonFire

When I read the article, I had an image of a crowd of people surrounding a person they were sure had set a massive forest fire which killed hundreds and destroyed millions of dollars of property. At the trial, the judge concludes that the individual was guilty of littering because he had dropped the match on the ground.

In short, "Is that all?" According to the source, management in the police department saw this as a new and dangerous situation. They came up with the rule that protestors had to keep moving. They passed the rule to the policemen who enforced it. The court said, there are a lot of things you can do for crowd control, but this new rule isn't one of them, sorry.

That's the story out of Ferguson? And to try to sensationalize it by claiming the police in Ferguson "have continuously violated the Constitution," makes it seem like even less of a story than it is.

This ruling confirms that the local police in this area do/have continuously violated the constitution. Yet the Ferguson police chief Thomas Jackson still refuses to step down, he should step down for both incompetence and for willfully violating the rights of the people that live and work there.

Do you hold the same position for other elected officials who have been told by courts more than once that their actions are illegal or unconstitutional?

Does anyone know if the whole "free speech zones" BS is currently moving up the court circuit as of yet? Would be great if we could get that ruled unconstitutional. Also the need to get a permit to protest, that is like a poll tax. Ridiculous that they have gone on so long unchecked.

a reply to: LDragonFire

Bout damn time!

Yes we have the right to assemble but, your right to assemble does not override others rights of free travel, so if they were clogging up the roads...

I would really need to know more about the situation because if the police told them to move while they were all standing around in a park, yea not kosher at all.

a reply to: LDragonFire

Step down? He should now be arrested for being an accessory after the fact.

originally posted by: Azdraik
Yes we have the right to assemble but, your right to assemble does not override others rights of free travel, so if they were clogging up the roads...

But when it comes to driving, I've only heard one thing from the police.

That it is a privilege and NOT a right.

Now you want it to be a right when it suits your own agenda?

a reply to: LDragonFire

they told protesters that they had to keep walking and that they couldn't stand still

Yeah! This is good news.

Imagine if abortion clinic protesters were told they couldn't stand still and had to keep moving!

Anyone interested, here is the memorandum and subsequent injunction

They placed an injunction upon further actions until the issue can be resolved in the Justice system.

Abdullah v. Saint Louis, County of, Missouri et al

Here is a notable:

Nothing in this preliminary injunction prevents defendants or any other law enforcement officers from enforcing the Missouri failure-to-disperse law or any other law...including ordering a crowd to move or disperse if law enforcement officers believe the crowd is assembled for the purpose of violence or rioting...prevent authorities from restricting protesting in certain areas or making other reasonable restrictions on the protests’ time, place and manner.

This is key to the situation as discussed. While Abdullah has a case, a large portion of the protesters were engaged in the above the officers are still allowed to engage in their duties and order the group to disperse. The police were surely wrong in their application of the "keep moving policy" but if you think this injunction is a slap against the State or the police; you have another thing coming.

a reply to: IslandOfMisfitToys

His post said nothing about driving. His post said the right of free travel. I know its hard to understand, but driving isn't the only method of travel. You can walk too, its also considered travelling.

So stop trying to twist other peoples posts to say what they didn't say to suit your own agenda.

The protests are happening on the sidewalks, if people enter the street they are arrested, this is one of the tactics that the police can and do enforce.

Seriously watch the wealth of videos showing the protests and the majority are on the side walks unless they are planned marches.

a reply to: LDragonFire

I like Charles1952's question to you--you call for the resignation of the Police Chief, but do you call for the resignation of Obama for doing unconstitutional things? When laws are passed and later deemed unconstitutional, do you want all in the legislative body to step down?

See, you pretend as if Police are constitutional scholars or lawyers or judges--they're not. Trust me, when I was in Army JAG and we worked with the MPs and CID, there are always misinterpretations of what they can or cannot do under regulations and laws. Same happens in the civilian world.

The Chief stepped up and appologized--and even tried to march and protest with the people, if memory serves--and does any of that matter? Apparently not. And these protestors who think the system is so damn broken, are they stepping up to fix the issues? Nope. They're probably just going to carry on their not-so-merry way come local election time and the same crap is going to cycle again.

Personally, I don't think the cops were in the wrong, and I think reacting to perceived wrongdoings with sometimes-violent wrongdoings as many of these "peaceful" protests devolved into--at least in the beginning--is such an utter display of ignorance and stupidity that it's even hard for me to take stories about Ferguson "protests" seriously.

I don't know the state laws concerning protests in MO, or the city ordinances about it in Ferguson, but I disagree with the judge's ruling--just because you have a right to peacefully assemble doesn't mean you can loiter in an area forever before being told to move on by local authorities. Not all actions, even if perceived as a "right," are consequence-free or without boundaries.

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys

originally posted by: Azdraik
Yes we have the right to assemble but, your right to assemble does not override others rights of free travel, so if they were clogging up the roads...

But when it comes to driving, I've only heard one thing from the police.

That it is a privilege and NOT a right.

Now you want it to be a right when it suits your own agenda?

I am pretty sure that is a straw man argument if I ever saw one. Driving is a privilege and not a right, you are correct. However impeding someone elses ability to travel on public roads in now way turns that privilege into some kind of a right. I hope you aren't doing this on purpose and are just uninformed. Either way you are so off base here it's not funny.