Unlawful assembly

Originally posted by saulbeats
Notice what is said there, people are able to have their say as long as the authorities permit them to have their say.

No. People are able to have their say, period. But if you're going to have a protest in a public place that other people are using, their needs and rights also must be taken into account. You need to get a permit to have a protest in the city where the world leaders are meeting.

What if authority doesn't like what I have to say? Tear gas and sonic cannons.

That's clearly not true. If you looked at my link, the people had a fine protest and weren't bothered at all.

The G20 has protests every year. And every year, it gets violent.

London Protests
Seattle Protests
Melbourne Protests

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
But in all the videos I have seen, the protesters were basically antagonized by the LEO's.

In all the snippets of videos I've seen, there's no way we can possibly tell what happened before the incident in the video... All we see are LEOs trying to get people to move or at the point where violence is breaking out. We have no idea why or what took place to cause it.

I have to ask myself - why post a 13 second video? Why not go ahead and let us see WHY the LEOs are clearing the street or WHY they resorted to pepper spray? Let's see the minute or so before the cop knocked the kid off the bike or whatever.

People are making judgments about the police action based on incomplete information.

13 second videos?

I have seen the 6 part video and each of the 6 parts was at least 4 minutes long.

Please tell me the purpose of trapping young adults, who are watching what is happening in a stair well, and gassing them.

Please tell me the purpose of surrounding a commons area and gassing them.

Please tell me the purpose of people trying to go about their business getting beaten down, shot at, and/or gassed.

please tell me the purpose of clearing a street that obviously has no traffic, and there is obviously no violence going on.

Please tell me the purpose of using an LRAD on people who are speaking their minds in a nonviolent fashion.




Like I said. The shock troopers antagonized the protesters and exasperated the situation.

[edit on 9/27/2009 by Lemon.Fresh]

In this case, the Thursday afternoon demonstration, the protesters hadn't even had the chance to impede on the rights of others before law enforcement started their assault. As far as I know any streets that looked completely blocked by demonstrators were already closed due to the summit. Honestly, given the circumstances, the demonstrators were shockingly well behaved when they came through my neighborhood (being chased there by tear gas and sonics). They did not shut any roads down, and they barely clogged pedestrian traffic.



That may be true in some cases there is no violence, but in this case the protesters were met with an iron fist. Speaking of impeding rights, what about of the citizens whose homes were bombarded by the LRAD? How about the kids playing in yards that may have felt tear gas?
The only group that was violating any rights were law enforcement.



[edit on 27-9-2009 by saulbeats]

[edit on 27-9-2009 by saulbeats]

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?
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]

Can you perhaps direct to those common "element" which actually states "Police chief saying it is an unlawfull assembly, then we can discuss it further.

reply to post by December_Rain


It starts at ~8:25 into the video



Now discuss further . . .



Mind you, this is no 13 second clip. You get the whole footage here, and there was no violence. There was no traffic that was blocked. It was a peaceful assembly.

[edit on 9/27/2009 by Lemon.Fresh]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by saulbeats
Notice what is said there, people are able to have their say as long as the authorities permit them to have their say.

No. People are able to have their say, period. But if you're going to have a protest in a public place that other people are using, their needs and rights also must be taken into account. You need to get a permit to have a protest in the city where the world leaders are meeting.

What if authority doesn't like what I have to say? Tear gas and sonic cannons.

That's clearly not true. If you looked at my link, the people had a fine protest and weren't bothered at all.

The G20 has protests every year. And every year, it gets violent.

London Protests
Seattle Protests
Melbourne Protests

So you think it is right, that we now need a permit to voice our opinions?

You think it is right that violence was used . . . on people using their rights (and innocent people that were just watching or passing through for that matter)?



Does not look like anyone is on that public road, or sidewalk trying to get through . . .

And what of the bicyclist that was taken down by the shock troopers for . . . riding her bike?

reply to post by KSPigpen

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.

BUT we the people hold the trump card and they do not want us to know it. It is called Jury Nullification. The ultimate power and insurance the People have against government run amok is their power in the jury.

THE JURY has the right to judge the law that the accused is supposed to have broken. That is what the term “jury nullification” means. A modern jury simply gives a verdict of “not guilty” because they are unaware The jury can also nullify the law if it is unconstitutional or improperly applied. The potential jury member of today is UNLAWFULLY instructed by the judge that they are triers of the facts and nothing more. The People simply do not understand that the SCOTUS is not the final judge— THEY ARE!

The primary function of the independent juror, is not as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by the government! fija.org...

reply to post by 0neKnows

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

I just spent the day "protesting" I talked one on one with people and then asked them to google the titles on the index card I handed them. If the material made sense to please pass it on to another 10 people.

Confessions of an Economic Hitman
Creature from Jekyll Island
Secrets of the Federal Reserve
Informed Jury Assoc
History, HACCP and Food Safety Con Job.


Protests do diddly squat. The media has been owned by the fed since 1917. One on one is the only way to get the word out to the uninformed. (I hate public speaking yet I ended up giving at least fifty lectures today- gack)

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
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.

Maybe it's been raised before, but I haven't read the whole thread yet...
BUT... the Constitution enumerates what the Federal government can or cannot do. Rights not specifically granted to the Federal government in the Constitution are reserved for the states and the citizens.
And therein lies most of the problems- challenging local ordinances as un-Constitutional- heck yeah, they're un-Constitutional because if the Fed did it, it would be. But it's the states' rights in question so the challenges should be to the state's constitution, not the US Constitution (note the change in case?)

States can always be more strict than the US Constitution, if they state's constitution provisions for that. Otherwise, the California Air Resource Board wouldn't have the proverbial leg to stand on since its requirements are more restrictive than Federal guidelines.

I mentioned it elsewhere that if a state wanted a socialistic form of governance and the people voted it in, there is nothing any other state could do. Something about "full faith and recognition", IIRC.

[edit on 9/27/2009 by abecedarian]

reply to post by abecedarian


Correct on a couple points, wholly incorrect on many.

States cannot restrict freedoms and immunities enjoyed by citizens of several states. For example Jim Crow laws, legal in the state but completely unconstitutional and therefore completely illegal. Each state must be ran as democratic republic just as the federal government is supposed to be ran (although it barely qualifies at this point in time).

Take the indoor smoking bans in a number of states today. Completely unconstitutional, yet no real legal challenge has been made that it discriminates against business owners in the states where "legal" because they do not have the same rights as business owners of the several other states that do not have such a ban.

In this case making a special exemption due to the G20 summit would be the state of PA and city of Pittsburgh unconstitutional declaring the summit to receive special status or specifically a noble status which is completely unconstitutional because not only can a state or local municipality do such a thing it would be again comparable to the White's Only drinking fountains or forcing blacks to the back of the bus.

While a permit to protest is recognized as maintaining the peace, breaking up peacefully gathered individuals is not nor should be legal unless the safety of the public is in danger.

Think of it this way, it may be proper protocol to bow or kneel before the Queen of England but US Protocol does not require any of its citizens to do so. Does not matter if here or there, a US citizen does not have to bow or kneel. While it is nice that the authorities wanted to shield the foreign dignitaries from protesters, doing so unconstitutionally does not make it legal.

no offense to anyone but the whole discussion is pretty worthless

its not about whats legal and illegal

it all doesnt really matter when people are being hit with batons and tear gas and pepper spray is everywhere

bottom line, if they dont want you protesting, they are going to attack whether its legal or not, and they will deal with the legality after the fact, and they will always invent or find some loophole that allows what they did

protest will never achieve anything anymore in this type of world

the media is too controlled, so the masses will never find out about the protest

and even if they do, so what? whats everyone going to do? keep protesting? go ahead, nothing will be accomplished except more jails will be filled up and more hospitals will be over crowded

protest will not work, the only thing that will work is putting the right people in office to make real changes

the real challenge is finding out who is the right person to put in office, and finding the way to actually get them in


these protests are simply worthless as sad as it is to say that, the people in charge simply dont give a damn whether there are 50 people or 5 million protesting, as long as the wheels are churning and people are working and buying things nothing is going to change


so in my opinion people need to stop protesting things like the g20 and stuff like that, because all thats going to happen is innocent people are going to get hurt, and even though they get hurt, nothing will change, people will simply die for nothing, they wont be remembered as martyrs, they simply wont even be remembered

[edit on 27-9-2009 by Dramey]

reply to post by Exuberant1


You seem to be missing a point.

If the UN wants to schedule a G-20 they get permits.

You have to get a permit dummy...otherwise you have no legs to stand on. Police can make arrests.

But, if you get a permit, then even the police must respect your permit and therefor you are properly exercising your constitutional rights.

And just think...nobody had to bust up a bunch of windows and light dumptsers on fire.

You will realize that they can be heald accountable to the same laws as we are.

If you want to defend the constitution defend the constitution, but if you are not going through the proper channels then you are choosing anarchy, so you might want to figure out what side of the fence you are on.

[edit on 27-9-2009 by 12.21.12]

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


Sorry for the delayed response. You don't have to agree with me. The law is a combination of statutes and legal decision by courts interperating statutes.

The United States Supreme Court states that there are certain legitimate restrictions that can be places on free speach.

For example, not all speach is protected. Fighting words are not protected, i.e. if I verbally assault you, I can be arrested.

You cannot use speach to cause a public panic, i.e. scream bomb or fire in a crowded place and you get arrested.

Each and every right in the bill of rights can be regulated. Sorry, you don't have to agree with me, I'm just telling you how it is.

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?
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]

I can tell you how it relates to California law..

Any officer who observes a violation of 407PC can declare any assembly to be "unlawful", a misdemeanor that must be committed in the officers presence.

For example; a few dozen bar patrons / party goers decide to gather in the street and launch rocks & bottles at the police, any officer can declared the assembly to be "unlawful" and order them to disperse. A lawful dispersal order should be given over a PA or loud enough for the crowd to reasonably hear it.

Anyone who remains is considered to be doing so willfully, and subject to arrest per 409PC... meaning the police can legally rush the crowd and use force necessary to make arrests, spray them like bugs and all that.

409PC. Every person remaining present at the place of any riot, rout, or unlawful assembly, after the same has been lawfully warned to disperse, except public officers and persons assisting them in attempting to disperse the same, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

407PC. Whenever two or more persons assemble together to do an unlawful act, or do a lawful act in a violent, boisterous, or tumultuous manner, such assembly is an unlawful assembly.

As far as the constitution, its not the officers call. It's not unconstitutional until the appropriate court(s) so rule... or when city govts / individual officers start losing $$ in civil lawsuits and change their policy.

Everyone so much as touched by an officer should file a complaint AND sue the city and officer in civil court. Make the city and officers association / FOP whatever pay dearly for their behavior, otherwise they wont learn any lesson.

Or...It will take an off probation officer or two to commit career suicide by refusing to obey dispersal orders as unconstitutional , get fired for insubordination.. then fight and win their argument... in court.

How can a group protest legally? you ask, well.. based on my experience.. you can't really. MANY of the rights you think you're entitled to have been diluted in red tape city permit bureaucracy & overlapping subjective laws.

You might think of your American rights as a shiny new fully loaded Mercedes... but you actually have a Ford Fiesta with faded paint and no engine.

All California laws can be found here:
www.leginfo.ca.gov...

reply to post by abecedarian

That was my interpretation of the constitution, but being Portuguese I do not really know how things work in the US.

The police not only have the right, they have the obligation of breaking up any demonstration, protest, or other gathering that appears to be getting violent. The First Amendment guarantee of freedom of assembly is for *peaceable* assembly. Nowhere are we guaranteed the right to riot.

Whether this protest was turning violent is an altogether different issue. The videos I've seen don't show why people were agitated. Was it from the protester themselves, or did the police incite the reaction? I can't tell. If the police started it, then they were wrong to do so. If the people were getting agitated by themselves,, then the police had to step in and stop the crowd from devolving into a riot.

Originally posted by 12.21.12
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.

Doesn't work that way.

Permits were applied for. TPTB chose who would get a permit and who would not. Free Tibet? They get a permit. Stop the FED? They don't.

Thus, it doesn't matter. Your constitutional right to protest what the government is up to at the G-20 is stopped in its tracks. YOU have no choice but to stay home and take whatever the international powers at the G-20 decide to give you...

...UNLESS you do what our forefathers did and ignore & fight back against those who attempt to abuse power and enslave the people.

Who among us has the guts to do that?

Well... some do.

reply to post by Whatthehell?


There is one fundamental flaw with that.

One is if you are in favor of the constitution, then you would seek the proper channels to use your constitutional power. Which is not vandalizing the city and running amok.

If you are a non-lawabiding citizen and you are demanding constitional rights all while having no respect for the law or in violation of someone elses permit (who went through the proper channels and gained permit.) then you are acting as an anarchist, (which is fine by the way) but in the eyes of the law the police have a right to enforce a permit andd can make arrests. You will never get anywhere legally and you are not providing a solution other than rioting and destruction.

The cops for the most part are hired local police forces to enforce city permit. Yes there are other groups present besides law enforcement. However the police are doing their jobs because they are there to enforce the permit to keep people safe in the permit zone.

Likewise, if you have a city permit, the police are restricted from making arrests unless there is violence or violations of such a permit.

However, a city permit is not required. So don't get a permit for all I care. The purpose of getting a permit is to protect yourself as well as others who do not oppose on the permit zone.

Again the nature of the topic is legal forms of assembly.





[edit on 28-9-2009 by 12.21.12]

www.unitedforpeace.org...

Know Your Rights: Demonstrating in New York City

Information from the New York Civil Liberties Union about your legal rights

Know Your Rights: Demonstrating in New York City
by The New York Civil Liberties Union

New Yorkers have the right to engage in peaceful, protest activity on public sidewalks, in public parks, and on public streets in New York City. This includes the right to distribute handbills or leaflets; the right to hold press conferences, demonstrations, and rallies; and the right to march on public sidewalks and in public streets. The City can and does impose certain restrictions on these activities, and in some instances one must obtain a permit before engaging in certain activity. This brochure is intended to inform New Yorkers of the basic rules governing demonstration activity.

Do I Need a Permit?

It depends on what you want to do. If you want to distribute handbills on a public sidewalk or in a public park, have a demonstration, rally, or press conference on a public sidewalk, or march on a public sidewalk and you do not intend to use amplified sound, you do not need any permit. If you want to use amplified sound on public property, want to have an event with more than 20 people in a New York City park, or wish to conduct a march in a public street, you will need a permit. If you wish to have an event on the steps of City Hall or in the plaza in front of the steps, you need to make special arrangements with the Police Department.

If I Want to Distribute Handbills; Have a Demonstration, Rally, Press Conference; or March on a Public Sidewalk, What Do I Need to Do?

Nothing but plan your event. If you want, you can notify the Police Department, but that is not required. If you do notify the Police Department, officers may appear at the event; if your event involves a significant number of people, the Police Department may set up a ?pen? in which they will ask you to stand.

In conducting your event, you cannot block pedestrian passage on a sidewalk, and thus should leave at least one-half of the sidewalk free for use. You also cannot block building entrances.

What if I Want to March on a Public Street?

You may be able to march in a public street (as opposed to on a sidewalk) in some circumstances. In every instance, you must apply (for) and obtain a permit from the Police Department. If you expect to have fewer than 1000 people in your march, you can apply for a permit at the precinct in which the march will originate. If you expect 1000 people or more, you must apply at Police Headquarters (1 Police Plaza, Room 1100A) in lower Manhattan. There is no fee to apply for a parade permit.

As a general rule, the Police Department will only allow marches to take place in the street if the group has enough people so that it is not safe or otherwise reasonable for the group to march on the sidewalk. In those instances in which a group is allowed to march in the street, the police will close a portion of the roadway for the group. (1)

What If I Want to Use Amplified Sound?

If you want to use amplified sound in a public place, you must receive a permit from the Police Department. You apply for the permit at the precinct within which you wish to use sound, and in most precincts you obtain the application from the precinct?s Community Affairs Office. The fee for a one-time permit is $45.00.

Though City rules specify that permits must be sought at least five days before the event, you are entitled to receive a permit even if you apply less than five days before your event. City rules prohibit the use of amplified sound within 500 feet of a school, courthouse or church during hours of school, court or worship, or within 500 feet of a hospital or similar institution. In many instances, the permit may specify a decibel limit on the level of permissible sound. City rules also prohibit the use of amplified sound between 10:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. in nonresidential areas; in residential areas, amplified sound is not permitted between 8:00 p.m. or sunset (whichever is later) and (9:00 a.m. on weekdays, and between 8:00 p.m. or sunset (whichever is later) and 10:00 a.m. on weekends.

Finally, if you intend to use amplified sound that requires electricity, you are not allowed to tap into public power (e.g. a light pole) unless you have made specific arrangements with the City to do so. (2)

What If I Want to Have a Rally, Press Conference or Demonstration in a City Park?

You are entitled to distribute expressive materials or to have a rally, press conference, or demonstration in a City Park. If the event will include more than 20 participants, you must obtain a Special Events permit from the Parks Department. You can obtain a permit application, which contains the general rules governing the permit process, from the Department?s main office in the borough where the park is located or from the Parks Department?s website (nycparks.completeinet.net). The fee for applying for a permit is $25.00.

You also are entitled to use amplified sound at an event in a City park. As with amplified sound in other public places, you must obtain a permit from the Police Department to use amplified sound in a public park. Generally, the Police Department will not issue a sound permit until you obtain your Parks Department permit. (3)

[edit on 28-9-2009 by 12.21.12]

[edit on 28-9-2009 by 12.21.12]

reply to post by December_Rain


I'm sorry I don't have time to repost the links. There are many posted elsewhere in the forums via videos of the Pittsburgh protests. In each of these videos the army want to be police come driving up in their armored vehicle complete with sound weapons and announce that the chief of police has declared this an illegal demonstration and orders the crowd to disburse.

In my opinion this is an attempt to use the law against the protesters. If the chief of police is going t issue a mandate declaring an event an unlawful assembly he should be able to provide the reasoning for so.

In my opinion, and I am not a lawyer, just by him saying something is unlawful does not make it so. This is nothing more than an intimidation technique to sway the masses away from public demonstrations.