Unlawful assembly

I've been watching some of the videos from Pittsburgh. The common element that the police use is "the chief of police has determined that this is an unlawful assembly". I have a few questions regarding this.....

1. since when is it the chief of polices job to determine what is an unlawful assembly?
2. How can the chief of police arbitrarily decide this as it goes against the constitution.
3. How can a group protest legally?
4. If the right to protest in granted by our constitution how then can a person or laws be passed that determine what is and what is not an unlawful assembly.
5. If the chief of police determines a protest is unlawful what are the legal grounds or guidelines he is using to determine this?

Your input please. If people are going to protest then we must be aware of the laws, how to protest within our rights.

Thanks






[edit on 26-9-2009 by photobug]

Great points!

Technically, you are right. The constitution cannot be overridden by local laws. A city can have rules or regulations, and procedure to obtain a permit or a suitable location for an event. However, the fact that a permit was denied, raises constitutional challenges. Maybe this is why the ACLU is suing on behalf of those that sought a permit and were denied it.

reply to post by photobug


Generally speaking, a bunch of people standing around being peaceful aren't going to get too much flak over it from the cops. But a group of people damaging property, throwing things at the police, etc. are definitely going to catch a lot of flak. I've read several news articles about the Pittsburgh protests and there's been a lot of people using it as an excuse to go nuts and do the things listed above.

You can legally protest, you just can't legally damage someone's property or assault them by throwing things at them. That is the difference between a peaceful, lawful assembly and what some have chosen to do in Pittsburgh.

I will now give you a detailed dissertation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution:

First, the actual text of the document:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Here are some Court decisions on the issue:

Demonstration by members of National Socialist party could be subjected to reasonable regulation of its time, place, and manner. Collin v. Smith, C.A.7 (Ill.) 1978, 578 F.2d 1197, certiorari denied 99 S.Ct. 291, 439 U.S. 916, 58 L.Ed.2d 264. Constitutional Law 1845

While advocacy is entitled to full protection under this amendment, action may be subjected to reasonable regulations as to time, place, and manner so long as these regulations are specifically tailored to promote significant government interests. Smith v. Sheeter, S.D.Ohio 1975, 402 F.Supp. 624. Constitutional Law 1510

Government may not stop demonstrations, although it may regulate and control demonstrations so long as it does so with fine impartiality. U. S. v. Crowthers, C.A.4 (Va.) 1972, 456 F.2d 1074. Constitutional Law 1846

So clearly, the time, place and duration of a protest can be regulated.

Here is an example:

What if an organization wanted to stage a demonstration on a regular work day at 8:30 in the morning on the busiest street in a city during rush hour?

Clearly the local government can say no to that request because it will create a tremendous inconvenience to the people just trying to get to work.

But if the protest was scheduled after rush hour in a manner that would not create a public safety concern, the local government could not arbitrarily say no to the request for the permit.

Take a look at the second amendment for guidance. Americans have the right to bear arms; however, I don't think you would quibble with me if I said a local government has the right to regulate that right with certain reasonable conditions.

For example, I may want to go deer hunting with a shoulder fired rocket launcher, but I am sure the local government has the right to say that I can't have a shoulder fired rocket.

reply to post by finemanm


Sorry . . . but I do not agree with you.

There are no limits placed in the Constitution regarding speech and firearms. The revolutionists protested violently as well (tea party anyone?) and they had cannons as well (i.e. rockets).

The government places limits because they are scared of the people . . .



[edit on 9/26/2009 by Lemon.Fresh]

May I advise you to remember that the global nature of the event and the existence of a standing "Patriot Act" complicates simple reliance on the Constitution. These people want control; the creation of the Homeland Security Syndicate, the addition of 'secret' Executive Orders" and the surrender of the State Governor to the whims of the Federal and International power mongers changes the ground rules.

These people are on the edge of a knife. If they screw up, the American people may just have to put them back in their place. Assuming, of course. we are not otherwise hypnotized by Hollywood/Madison Avenue tactics.

[edit on 26-9-2009 by Maxmars]

reply to post by Maxmars


Can you point to the section in the Patriot Act which has anything to do with protestors?

It's really sort of sad, but it doesn't matter what the constitution says. (I know, I know...)

But really, it doesn't. You have supreme courts justices that are there for life. They are a put there by presidents. a justice isn't going to be appointed to the highest court in the land that doesn't agree politically with the bonehead administration that got them there. Even if they DID disagree, there would be a vote and freedom would lose again, in a 5-4 kinda crap vote. It's all part of the game.

It just doesn't matter. The head law enforcer in any area has the power of God in his jurisdiction. Declaring something an 'unlawful assembly' is just crap. Go to a small town and tell the police chief he's a dip. See where your 'rights' are then.

The constitution is nothing more than a fairy tale any more. It's twisted and discounted and walked all over all the time. It only means something in history books.

Just get a permit.

A little trick from the entertainment industry. They usually get permits to shoot. Same idea, just get a city permit and you can do what you want.

reply to post by finemanm

Here in Portugal we also have the right to make peaceful demonstrations, but an organised demonstration must ask permission to the "Governo Civil", a local authority that represents the government in that area.

But I accept that because while people can peacefully make a demonstration they should also remember that they are using a public area, and while they do the demonstration they are limiting other people's rights.

reply to post by ArMaP


What rights are a protest limiting?

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

The right the other people have of using that public space.

If a demonstration is marching down a street and occupying it to its full width then traffic has to be stopped, so the demonstration is limiting other people's rights of free movement and use of a public resource.

Ok that makes sense if it is interfering with other peoples rights, but sometimes no matter what a decision is it is going to interfere on one parties rights or the other.

Originally posted by stevegmu
reply to post by Maxmars

 

Can you point to the section in the Patriot Act which has anything to do with protestors?

It's existence is the issue to which I was referring.

The need for it. It is a tacit recognition that the government intends to exercise military powers within the national boundaries under the guise of security against a terrorist threat. You may not have noticed or considered that in today's post Patriot Act world - the government can and have exercised, (nor has it rescinded it prerogative to) claim supreme power in deciding who is and who isn't a terrorist, and they can quite effectively detain and isolate any person they claim to believe is a terrorist.

On that premise alone, the old Constitutional paradigm. the Bill of Rights, was diminished.

As far as we know, despite the actuality of this event, the law stipulates that one cannot be arrested as it appeared in the video. Authority must be exercised as the law decrees. Except for terrorists of course. Then anything goes.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

The government places limits because they are scared of the people

must i be the one to say it? oh please, please, let it be me?
"a people should not be afraid of it's govt. a govt. should be afraid of its people".

This is my favorite video from the Protests:

www.youtube.com...

The Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Disturbing the peace:
en.wikipedia.org...

Disturbing the peace is a crime generally defined as the unsettling of proper order in a public space through one's actions. This can include creating loud noise by fighting or challenging to fight, disturbing others by loud and unreasonable noise (including loud music or dog barking), or using offensive words or insults likely to incite violence.

Let's face reality...

Most protests contain a large amount of people that are usually blocking the streets. They are obstructing traffic for non-protesters, and near by businesses. If a non-protester who is trying to get from point A to point B is disturbed by a group of protesters blocking traffic, the police have the right to move the protesters.

If they are blocking sidewalks, that is also grounds for being removed. There are "ease of access" laws, there are "wheelchair access laws" and other "fire hazard" laws the prohibit groups of people from gathering on sidewalks and blocking them.

Also, most protesters are yelling, using megaphones, and other devices to make their voice heard. This is disturbing the peace in many ways, which is also grounds for being removed.

Most protesters have ZERO RESPECT for ANYONE in the surrounding areas. No respect for traffic, no respect for non-protesters passing by. No respect for homes and businesses around them who don't want to get involved, etc.

Lets look at the purpose of a protest:

Protest expresses relatively overt reaction to events or situations: sometimes in favor, though more often opposed. Protesters may organize a protest as a way of publicly and forcefully making their opinions heard in an attempt to influence public opinion or government policy, or may undertake direct action to attempt to directly enact desired changes themselves.

Street protesting is pretty much pointless. There are better ways to "protest" without gathering in streets and disturbing the peace, and obstructing traffic.

1: How about raising some money and buying a commercial spot on prime television to express your views?

2: How about raising money and making fliers and banners. Buying ad space on the sides of highways, and other places?

3: How about legally renting a park, or field with permits, and holding concert like protests?

4: Getting a career in politics, or other places of power?

There are many ways... but protesting on the streets just has very little effect. All it does is piss people off, and cause controversy. It doesn't change laws, or minds, or intimidate anyone... All it does is show how many people are worried about a certain issue. That all can be done without getting in trouble by police.

It's great people feel the need to protest on the street, and they actually do it.... but if you really think about it, long and hard, there are other ways to accomplish the same goals, and street protesting is pointless compared to the other ways of protesting.

Originally posted by photobug
I've been watching some of the videos from Pittsburgh. The common element that the police use is "the chief of police has determined that this is an unlawful assembly". I have a few questions regarding this.....

1. since when is it the chief of polices job to determine what is an unlawful assembly?

[edit on 26-9-2009 by photobug]

He's not. The fact is that the same recording must been used at a dozen different protests....hell, the recording seemed to be playing even when there were no protests in sight and the police simply wanted to clear the street of anyone who happened to be standing around.

If any of these people had acted to obtain a court order or injunction to stop this kind of illegal police conduct, the beatings may have been avoided. The law has remedies for private citizens who have had their constitutional rights destroyed in this manner. However, you MUST seek out these remedies. The victims must bring lawsuits and lawyers must be prepared in advance of these protests to seek court orders protecting their right to peaceably assemble.

The cops are robots following orders. They do not want to lose their jobs and their superiors want the federal kickbacks for clearing the area. If elected officials were responsible for this, they need to be targeted for protests. Fund their competition. Establish real consequences for politicians that sell out their constituents in exchange for federal grants. The people of Pittsburgh have a responsibility now to make sure the world knows what happened. Someone is going to get killed by the police if this continues.

[edit on 26-9-2009 by andrewh7]

I think you guys are missing something very important about the idea of protesting. The whole point is to disrupt the normal way of life. Buying an ad on tv does nothing but waste time between whatever show people are watching. Protesting is about getting in the middle of the road and disrupting everyones day to day life in order to force action. Do you think the civil rights movement would have been successful if people stayed on the sidewalk out of peoples way? NO!! People would have walked past them talking about how annoying they are and gone right back to their lives. Think about all the times you see people standing around talking about whatever, passing out fliers about who knows what, and you don't give them the time of day. The only way people will pay attention to you is if you make it impossible for them to not pay attention.

Originally posted by 0neKnows
There are many ways... but protesting on the streets just has very little effect. All it does is piss people off, and cause controversy. It doesn't change laws, or minds, or intimidate anyone... All it does is show how many people are worried about a certain issue. That all can be done without getting in trouble by police.

It's great people feel the need to protest on the street, and they actually do it.... but if you really think about it, long and hard, there are other ways to accomplish the same goals, and street protesting is pointless compared to the other ways of protesting.

Your opinion on the effectiveness of a street protest is utterly irrelevant. Protests on public property are legally protected. Any city ordinance on noise is inferior to the state and federal constitutions. Any such law that overly burdens one's reasonable expression of constitutional rights is not going to be enforced by the courts.

There is a big difference between playing a radio at full volume at 4am during a party and chanting a protest slogan while walking down the street in the middle of the day. It's nice that you are only annoyed by people exercising their constitutional rights. Me - not so much. That's why I went to law school and became a licensed attorney in the State of Michigan. I believe in the law and enforcing it as it was written, equally to all, regardless of their message.

Perhaps one day you'll find a cause that will actually compel to leave your couch. If that times comes, you'll appreciate that you have the right to speak in a public forum. You can't make people listen but you can sure as hell try. Pittsburgh's police were attacking peaceful individuals, many of whom were not even involved in protesting. Regardless of what you think of a protester's message or the effectiveness of their argument, they have a right to be there. Another country's streets may be quieter - consider moving.