BART Keeps Cell Service Despite Protests 196
Okian Warrior writes "After taking heat from the ACLU and being hacked by Anonymous for shutting down cellphone service to four stations last week, BART kept cell service on during Monday's protests. Officials at Bay Area Rapid Transit decided Monday that cutting cellphone service to thwart another planned protest would cause more trouble than the protests themselves. Instead, four stations were temporarily closed, creating a chaotic rush-hour commute."
Re:BART really doesn't like dissenting voices (Score:5, Informative)
Interesting but annoying.
From the news stories I read the person shot was said to be armed with a knife and one of the officers involved was treated for cuts. Is that not true? What is your source? In fact there is a video of him throwing a knife at the officer. A drunk throwing bottles and knives at officers in a train station where their are other passengers seems like a real threat to me. The bottle stuck to officer and the Officer fired on the man after he threw the bottle and was coming at him with a knife.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/bay-area/2011/07/bart-shooting-video-shows-thrown-knife-not-threat-man-posed [sfexaminer.com]
Frankly that data points to the officers reaction being reasonable IMHO. It isn't proof but there does seem to be some data that points in that direction and very little that points to this being an unjustified shooting.
Second where does someones rights end? Why do the protesters rights to free speech matter more than peoples rights to use public transit? The protesters set out to shut down the stations. They have every right to protest outside the stations but once they interfere with people using the station they are violating others rights.
I do not see what there is to protest about. It almost seems like vigilantly justice towards the police.
Re:Baby with the bathwater (Score:5, Informative)
The cell phone antennas in the BART tunnels and platforms are own and operated by the carriers, who pay a hefty sum of cash to BART as rent.
Re:WTF is this story about? (Score:5, Informative)
Grr. I accidentally posted this as an AC. Here's your context:
Two years ago BART PD shot and killed an unarmed, handcuffed man on the platform[1] of the West Oakland BART Station. White cop, black detainee. It California, if not the rest of the US, it's extremely rare for on-duty police officers to be charged with felonies surrounding shooting deaths. The police officer was tried, and convicted of involuntary manslaughter with a "gun enhancement". The judge threw out the "gun enhancement" and sentenced the police officer to the minimum amount of jail time required by law.
Two months ago BART PD shot and killed a man on the platform of Civic Center BART Station[2]. This time the deceased was a white man. BART PD alleged that he was drunk, aggressive, had a knife, and had already thrown a bottle at one of the police officers. BART has released security video of the situation which, unfortunately, doesn't seem to clarify much[3]. Witnesses at the scene claim that the man was not acting aggressively[3,4], and that the man's actions did not warrant the use of lethal force. There is, apparently, some dispute as to whether the man had a knife in the first place.
Last week, there were rumours swirling around about protests scheduled for Thursday regarding this latest shooting. In response, BART preemptively shut down their cell phone repeaters in the San Francisco portion of the subway[5]. This raised the ire of Anonymous[6], who obtained and subsequently released user information (names, addresses, passwords, telephone numbers) from BART's myBART.org site[7,8].
That's about as succinct as I can make the current tensions surrounding BART PD.
Meanwhile on the streets of San Francisco:
In January, SFPD shot an aggressive, knife wielding, wheelchair equipped man in the leg[9]. He was shot with a beanbag gun and subsequently dropped his knife. Allegedly the act of dropping his knife was considered further aggression, so SFPD shot him with a gun. He survived and is now suing the city[10].
In July, SFPD shot a man running away from SF MUNI fare inspectors. Allegedly he shot at SFPD, and police officers returned fire[11]. He died. People protested[12]. The latest twist is that the deceased in this case accidentally inflicted the lethal wound upon himself[13].
So, yes, there's a lot of tension in the BART system and in San Francisco right about now.
Add to the mix that there's a general sense of BART dragging their feet in releasing footage and being less than transparent and, yeah, people get more pissed. Throw in a side of pimping a child and allegedly murdering a pregnant woman, and yeah, some people feel very strongly that the latest SFPD shooting was justified. And, yeah, there's there's a lot of tension both between the public and the police as well as within the general community at large.
1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Police_shooting_of_Oscar_Grant [wikipedia.org]
2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Police#Passengers_killed_by_the_department [wikipedia.org]
3: http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/07/charles_hill_bart_shooting_vid.php [sfweekly.com]
4: http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/07/charles_hill_identified_as_man.php [sfweekly.com]
5: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/08/13/national/a110904D55.DTL [sfgate.com]
6: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/14/BAH71KN6CK.DTL [sfgate.com]
7: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011 [sfgate.com]
Re:Shut it all off! (Score:3, Informative)
There is NOTHING in the Constitution about freedom of speech that says that you have to assist demonstrators in shutting down your system.
Merely that pesky First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech") as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment (See Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925)) and a host of Supreme Court precedent stating that prior restraints to speech must serve a compelling governmental interest, be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest, and be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.
The closest analog to this situation is likely found in the imminent lawless action test. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969). Before you interpret that phrase too broadly, consider that the Supreme Court stated that "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
"Because July protests against BART police shootings had turned violent, BART officials took the unusual step to protect public safety, they said." Source: Christian Science Monitor [csmonitor.com].
That doesn't sound like evidence that anyone was advocating imminent violence. That doesn't even sound like evidence that violence was likely to occur last week. Instead, that sounds like an official decided that potential violence was a good hook and shut down the BART cell phone repeater system based on the likely content of the calls (calls organizing a protest) rather than any substantial likelihood of violence.
First, Anonymous wasn't involved last week's demonstration. Second, BART is a governmental organization that is incapable of owning "private property." Third, even in the sense that the government can exclude the general public from public property, there's this pesky problem:
Subways and their stations are merely another iteration of a public street, and while they merit tighter regulations due to the environment (confined spaces, dangerous areas, etc), that last "but" does not completely go away. Public transit, like it or not, is required to deal reasonably with public speech and protest.
It will. Merely not in the sense that you intended. Peaceful protestors* will defend against charges filed against them in court (that pesky Brandenburg didn't like his criminal conviction), the ACLU or some other entity will drag BART into court if they use that tactic again.
Too late. BART in general faces an even more riled up and motivated opposition as a result of this action. Besides, the courts are not there to resolve political problems. Politics exists to resolve political problems. Politics is sometimes diplomatic, sometimes backroom, and sometimes made on the streets. Get used to it.