7244304
story
Comments: 550 +- Your Rights Online: Police Arrest Man For Refusing To Tweet on Tuesday November 24, @02:18PM
Posted
by
samzenpus
on Tuesday November 24, @02:18PM
from the when-they-say-tweet-you-better-tweet dept.
from the when-they-say-tweet-you-better-tweet dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicidle.png); width:70px; height:80px;
idle
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicnews.gif); width:60px; height:66px;
news
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.'"
Related Stories
Executive ability is prominent in your make-up.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
Sounds like an open-and-shut false-arrest case. (Score:4, Informative)
n/t
Re:Sounds like an open-and-shut false-arrest case. (Score:5, 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).
Parent
Re:Sounds like an open-and-shut false-arrest case. (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.
Parent
Re:Sounds like an open-and-shut false-arrest case. (Score:5, 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.
Parent
Decisions, decisions... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Decisions, decisions... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Decisions, decisions... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Decisions, decisions... (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.
Parent
Ahh Slashdot (Score:5, Informative)
And no i'm not new here.
Re:Ahh Slashdot (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.
Parent
Re:Ahh Slashdot (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Ahh Slashdot (Score:5, 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 [onecle.com]
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.
Parent
Re:Ahh Slashdot (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.
Parent
Re:Ahh Slashdot (Score:5, 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?
Parent
Re:Ahh Slashdot (Score:5, 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
Parent
Posters here are like the teens in the vid (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you watched the video? Did you see how PACKED it was?
Where were the orderly lines, set up with ropes, enforced with security? Where were any possible safety measures?
This record exec, if he arranged this, screwed up in a HUGE way. It was pretty clear that NO one was organizing or making this event orderly. I'm surprised people weren't getting pushed over the waist high walls into the second level, or falling and getting crushed under foot.
I'm sorry, but there is a whole lot of circumstances here beside what the oh-so-informative title says. The record label and the mall need to be held responsible for that total cluster fuck. Ordering him to tweet WAS compeltely reasonable when you see the danger involved that this man caused by a total lack of preparation.
Re:Posters here are like the teens in the vid (Score:5, 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.
Parent
Re:Posters here are like the teens in the vid (Score:5, 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.
Parent
Remain calm. (Score:5, 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
Riotous rumor (Score:4, 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.
Re:Riotous rumor (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
It was a near riot of teenage girls! (Score:4, Funny)
My god, it's full of idiots... (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.
Crap (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 [limelife.com]
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/ [rightpundits.com]
Crappy summary linking to crappy reporting.
Re:Crap (Score:4, Informative)
All of the sources seem to link back to this NY Daily News article [nydailynews.com], and specifically, this paragraph:
If somebody can find a link to those tweets, this accusation has some merit.
Parent
seems pretty reasonable to me (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Alternative headline: (Score:5, Funny)
Cops powerless against teenage girls.
I think I can see why they needed to arrest someone...
Re:How would that work (Score:5, 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.
Parent
Re:How would that work (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.
Parent
Re:How would that work (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:How would that work (Score:5, Funny)
"Vee haf vays of making you tweet."
I believe the correct spelling is "tveet."
Parent
Re:How would that work (Score:4, 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.
Parent
Re:How would that work (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:How would that work (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:How would that work (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:How would that work (Score:4, 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?
Parent
Re:How would that work (Score:5, Insightful)
Regarding your assertion that the executive was required by law to comply, I will reply with the much overused "Citation Please".
Parent
Re:How would that work (Score:4, Insightful)
With a lawful order, yes. What they demanded of him was not something that they could lawfully demand him to do.
Parent
Re:How would that work (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:How would that work (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.
Parent
Re:How would that work (Score:4, Funny)
Do they have proportional fonts in your country?
Parent
Re:How would that work (Score:4, 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 [nytimes.com]. 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.
Parent
Re:How would that work (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:How would that work (Score:5, Funny)
So it was the same group of idiots? That explains a lot, actually.
Parent
Re:How would that work (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:How would that work (Score:5, 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.
Parent
Re:Dark Ages (Score:4, Insightful)
What if he doesn't use twitter?
Do you honestly think they would have asked that of him if he didn't?
Parent
Re:Now this is just Stupidity at its finest (Score:5, 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...
Parent
Re:Not about twitter (Score:4, 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.
Parent
Re:They got it backwards (Score:4, Informative)
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...
Parent