"The problem with you people is your cities have never been burned and your mothers have never been told to shut up. Good night, here's the next poem."

DE-fusing?

who's education

who's incarceration

wtf over

That easily makes them far, far more competent than the SPD.

Look at the WSP's successful use of stealth, rather than tough guy Dodge Chargers, to combat road rage. Or the SPD's Village People leather clad motorcycle cops on retro Harley's, versus the WSP's 21st century gear and bikes.

I think it's a huge and well-deserved win by the students. They knew they were engaging in legal, protected speech and they stood their ground. The cop was wrong and the authorities acknowledged it.

Most important, the protesters didn't get roughed up too badly (ask people who were at WTO), and they got way more publicity for their cause. It was like a case-study -- they did everything right, especially capturing it on video.

Chalk one up for the kidz!

Good thing they filmed it, though, or they'd be shit out of luck. The cop would've made something up about how the sign was posing a danger to public safety, the protesters were resisting arrest, etc.

Everyone should start filming immediately when cops show up anywhere, because so many of them are rank idiots and power-mad jackasses.

"Education not incarceration"? Good one, guys. Way to make a statement.

Like it or not the cops are holding all the cards in that situation, and when they've made up their minds what they want to have happen is going to happen. You're not going to get anywhere arguing, especially not like that.

Anyway, no one got hurt, nothing was destroyed, what's the big deal?

The agency matters a lot as well. WSP are generally considered above-the-board professionals (with notable exceptions of course). But I wouldn't get in an argument with a KC deputy. And whatever you do, don't get yourself on the wrong side of the knuckle-draggers at Port of Seattle or City of Sammamish. The KC prosecutor kicks their cases all the time for misconduct. Animals.

If you have to ask that question, you're too thick to understand the answer.

Sure he didn't handle it the best way but he wasn't infringing their constitutional rights in any way. You have to remember that he was trying to protect people on the freeway, not just come stomp on a bunch of hippies.

I think the guy is, personally, an asshole and he handled it badly, but it's not like people are making it out to be.

Or are hippies the only people allowed to demonstrate? I don't get it.

And yes, he did infringe on their rights when he tore down the sign, which wasn't placed illegally.

And, no, he didn't infringe any constitutional right by taking down the sign that he thought was a threat to people on the freeway. He's empowered to safegaurd people.

It's the classic, your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose scenario. He may have been wrong about it, but it's his job to make judgment calls like that and as a practical matter, you get a lot further with people without being confrontational.

At the end of the day, both parties in this video acted like idiots, not just the cop.

The police officer in this video, with the full power of the State behind him, does not have the right to act like an idiot.

The police officer acted like an idiot. Citizen rights infringed.

Yes, the officer did mention public safety, once, as a reason. He then said that it was state property. To me, it sounded like he was just rattling off whatever came to mind as a potential reason to have them leave.

Questioning an officer doesn't make you an idiot. If they'd cursed at him, called him a pig, I'd agree with you, that would be pretty idiotic. They didn't do anything of the sort (unless I missed something in my viewing).

Smegalicious wrote:

When the cops tell you to move, you move unless it's going to threaten your life or something.

If a police officer tells you to move and you're confident that your location is one that is lawful (like, say a city sidewalk), you let him write you a ticket (i.e., send you to explain it to a judge) or stay there and let him remove you if he feels he must.

We don't (yet) live in a police state. Police cannot give arbitrary orders.

the officer did mention public safety, once, as a reason. He then said that it was state property. To me, it sounded like he was just rattling off whatever came to mind as a potential reason to have them leave.

Eventually, he threatened to ticket them for "obstuction". Can someone please point me to a definition of the crime of obstuction?

Increasingly, I see it used in cases of police misconduct when police want to force someone to do something but do not have any authority to do so. It's like saying, "do what I say or I'll charge you with not doing what I say." It's what peaceful demonstrators are accused of in an effort to get them out of the public eye for the duration of the public's attention.

Do I agree the sunglasses have got to go though! Love ya

That sign is distracting period! It posed a distraction to the drivers on Southbound I-5.

Probably so. What is your point?

There's no law preventing the distraction of drivers. If there was, we wouldn't have roadside advertising of any sort.

They were directed to disperse and refused. They violated RCW 9A.84.020. Like I said those kids got off "scott free".

Bottom line -- these kids were not breaking any laws. The officers were out of line. The kids stood their ground. Go kids.

Kudos to the WSP for admitting this was an overreaction. Kudos to the kids for not doing something dumb that would justify a boot to the head.

RCW 9A.84.020
Failure to disperse.

(1) A person is guilty of failure to disperse if:

(a) He congregates with a group of three or more other persons and there are acts of conduct within that group which create a substantial risk of causing injury to any person, or substantial harm to property; and

(b) He refuses or fails to disperse when ordered to do so by a peace officer or other public servant engaged in enforcing or executing the law.

(2) Failure to disperse is a misdemeanor.

Notice the little "and" between (a) and (b). Can you look at that tape and *honestly* say that their actions "create(d) a substantial risk of causing injury to any person, or substantial harm to property"

Or are you just a buddy of Officer Hypertension?

This video made me sick and I sent an e-mail to the Mayor of Baltimore and the Police Commissioner.

I normally do not react to events that do not concern
me or events that are clear across the country.
However, I just saw a story on CNN American Morning
regarding one of your officers by the name of Officer
Rivieri (please forgive the spelling).

As a fellow law enforcement officer from the State of
Washington I am shocked and disgusted by your
officer's actions against a 14 year old child with a
skateboard. I had to go to YouTube.com to see the
entire video.

As law enforcement officers we are held to a higher
standard because of the training and tremendous
responsibility and duty that we have to PROTECT AND
SERVE the public! This officer's behavior towards
this child was not SERVING or PROTECTING.

I do not care if this child was mouthing off to this
officer (which he was not) and I do not care if there
were signs posted every 3 feet stating "no skating".
This is a child that a man put his hands on and God
forbid this was my child, because you would have a
lawsuit on your hands faster than you can finish
reading this e-mail.

Our training makes us stronger and smarter. It builds
THICK skin because that is what you need to do this
job effectively. The badge and gun does not make us
God. For this officer to lose his ability to remain
cool because a child called him "dude" is
unacceptable.

There are speed limit signs and when we pull people
over we do not yell at them for ignoring the posted
speed limit signs. We use the least amount of force
and enforcement to get our point across and that may
mean getting an infraction or verbal warning. We do
not pull them out of their vehicle and put them in a
head lock or take their vehicle for that matter.

The young man I tackled to the ground the other night
after being involved in a vehicle pursuit and a
subsequent foot pursuit got more respect from me than
this officer showed this child. I do not know what
kind of training your agency provides to your officers
but it either did not work for Officer Rivieri or he
needs a refresher. Because to me he is a bully with a
badge and gun with a big chip on his shoulder.

Maybe in my agency we are held to much higher standard
which I am proud of. I would be embarrassed to be a
Baltimore Police Officer after that video made it to
the media and YouTube."

They were totally in the right, but they sound like any other group of idiots with something to say that think that taking it to the streets gets the message across better.

You might be able to articulate that but you would still be wrong.

Every day, nearly 3,000 men and women put on our uniform and work to
make Baltimore safer. The vast majority do their jobs with integrity,
courtesy, and a high degree of professionalism. When incidents like the
one in the video do occur, we work hard to deal with them quickly, and
the department is making every effort to prevent them through better
training for both new and veteran officers.

The Baltimore Police Department is committed to high standards of
personal and professional conduct, and both Mayor Dixon and Police
Commissioner Fred Bealefeld expect all officers to meet those
standards.

Regards,

Sterling Clifford
Public Affairs Director
Baltimore Police Department"

The police officer said that it was a safety issue. I wasn't there, so can't opine on whether this was the case. But, it seems like it was not a safety issue, and the officer was lying.

In this instance, I think the citizens have the right (perhaps even the duty) to try to make their case. To fight injustice, however small.

Now I gotta go finish dinner.

Signs on billboards which most people don't pay attention to are not the same thing as a group of kids TRYING to get the attention of drivers down below on the freeway.

You don't think that billboards, scientifically designed and focus-group tested by marketing experts, are any more effective at getting the attention of people who pass them than is some people holding a sign on an overpass?

They were directed to disperse and refused. They violated RCW 9A.84.020.

No, they were not directed to disperse. They were directed to take down their sign and refused to do so. That is unrelated to RCW 9A.84.020.

Can you look at that tape and *honestly* say that their actions "create(d) a substantial risk of causing injury to any person, or substantial harm to property"?

No, I cannot. I doubt that a judge would either. I doubt that the officer thought that a judge would think so. I suspect that it was with this knowlege that he chose simply to harass them and then to take matters into his own hands, pulling the sign down and pushing the demonstrators into the street (did anyone else notice that?) in the process. He, like many police officers, probably loses control when some citizen dares to challenge his authority.

if a police officers tells you to do something, you have to do it, no matter what?

Of course not -- not in this country.

If you're really interested in dealing with police encounters, I recommend looking at the Flex Your Rights Foundation's Web site. Or go straight to youtube and watch theur video, BUSTED: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters.

If I am standing on a sidewalk, not breaking any laws, and a policeman says I have to leave for "safety" reasons, but cannot give a reason why my presence is a safety issue, should I leave?

In my opinion, if you think he's right, then you should leave. If you think he's simply harassing you or doesn't like the sign you are holding, then no, you should not give in to his bullying tactics by leaving. Let him accuse you of wrongdoing, and then explain it to a judge.

In this instance, I think the citizens have the right (perhaps even the duty) to try to make their case. To fight injustice, however small.

Well said.

If we don't flex our rights, we will lose them.

What asstard would run up on a cop like that and not get maced?

Officer anonymous responded:

LOL that's awesome Rachael F.

I just watched it a second time and I don't see any running, only lots of talking. Could each of you please provide the time in the video at which you think use of chemical weaponry (i.e., Mace) by the police officer was warranted?

You are barking up the wrong tree.

I'm not barking up any tree. I'm trying to counteract all this police state propaganda by injecting some facts into this discussion.

mmbb wrote:

make sure you ask for the officer's badge number, too; that not only indicates your willingness to comply with the officer's commands, but also that you watch too much tv.

It indicates that you know they are required to display it, and that you understand that the ability to identify an officer who has done something wrong is so important that identifying him when that seems at all likely is a good policy.

... and make sure you ask for the officer's badge number, too; that not only indicates your willingness to comply with the officer's commands, but also that you watch too much tv.

So here's a little story about an Eritrean friend of mine in MN. One day he was riding his bicycle along in Brooklyn Center, when a cop pulls him over on suspicion of being a guy they wanted for questioning. Cuffed him, put him in the back of the squad, waited for like an hour.

My buddy can hear the radio traffic. In the end, they had been looking for a 5'10" black guy. My buddy was 5'4" on a good day. The cop takes the cuffs off, says "get out." My buddy says "you pulled me over just because I'm black." The cop says "what? Get out of the car." My buddy says "Gimme your badge number." The cop says "Fuck you. Out of the car."

And with that, he left. Only my buddy managed to get the squad number. He wrote a blistering note to the chief of police, who noted that officer xyz had never before had any complaints against him, and that the letter would be kept on file for five years, and that if there were any future incidents in that time this incident would be considered. My buddy came away feeling that the system works and that his concerns had been addressed, and that the Brooklyn Park Police Department was not entirely composed of racist thugs.

So the moral is- police and citizens are both better served when citizens know and exercise their rights.

you seem angry... are you by any chance RELATED to that fat cop in the video?

i dont particularly care whether he was right or wrong, it's his holier then thou, suck-my-dick attitude that shits me. he has a chip on his shoulder and i can picture him being the type of cop that nitpicks what haircut someone has rather then doing his real job which is to arrests murderers rapists and thieves.

*gasp* students protesting oh my GOD lives are at RISK! *scoff*

On the flip side I don't think that Trooper reacted strong enough. I think the suck-my-dick attitude is funny because I thought he was soft and not hard like a dick that you obviously need. And what part of me being a gay/black/mexican/jew did you miss? So how I can I be related to a white cop.

People like you are making me sick because you are so upset over a Trooper that pulled down a sign on some college kids give me a break. He fucking saved those kids from a beat down that SPD or UWPD would brought to them.

But if I understand the situation -- and I haven't done any research, I'm admittedly relying on the original slog post -- there are already guidelines in place that determine what specific kinds of assemblies on overpasses are deemed legal. Those guidelines, determined to clarify the rights of protestors in situations like this, prohibit blocking traffic or physically hanging signs from the freeway. If people aren't doing that, they're not breaking the law, and they can stay.

According to the original post, this wasn't a situation in which an officer needed to make a judgment call. The law was clear; the people hadn't broken it. The officer didn't have the discretion to determine that specifcally protected speech was suddenly not protected.

Again, I'm relying on the slog for this analysis, but it seems anyone could articulate these facts to a court, as well. This is not about protest, or the arrogance of kids (or the police). This is about the law and an officer's duty to enforce it, not change it. That the statement from the police spokesman called it an "overreaction" seems to corroborate the view that the officer misinterpreted the law. You could say he was putting out fires, but that's speculation without any evidence. The facts at hand seem to indicate otherwise.

Those are the options.

They violated state statutes aforementioned above. It doesn't matter how you interpret the law that's up to the attorney's you pay for and the judge. For all we know those kids researched municipal code which does not outweigh state statute.

And the WSP admitting that he was overreacting does not mean he misinterpreted the law.

If there's a state law allowing an officer wide discretion in determining what is a "substantial risk" and a municipal code specifically protecting certain forms of speech, it's an officer's job to enforce the municipal code if he can before he chooses to ignore it.

Put simply, there's a decision to be made when people are staging a possibly hazardous protest. Sometimes an officer has to make the decision about what should be permitted, and what should not. The state law you mention gives the officer that ability. Sometimes, however, a community writes a code to specifically address some question, and then it becomes the officer's duty to enforce the code. He cannot choose to rewrite the code or assess events himself and hold that the state law under which he arrested people supercedes the municipal code which he completely disregarded.

It's important that officers not be constrained by ordinances that prevent them from making common sense judgments. But it's equally important that officers follow the law when the law is clear. All you could say about this sign is, drivers would look at it momentarily while they drive. It followed the procedures the code described: it was not fastened to the overpass, ready to fall, and the protestors did not block any traffic.

They weren't even shouting or marching. They seemed to be standing peacefully. Someone wrote a law to decide what they were allowed to do. They obeyed that law. And then a police officer ripped down their sign.

Does that seem like rhetoric, to you?

State law pertained to the situation not municipal code. Who fucking cares if they were shouting or marching it doesn't matter.

You have no rights while I am King.

Sincerely,

His Royal Majesty George W Bush

And you are utterly, profoundly ignorant of the basic foundational principles of this country.

If there was any doubt before that your comments are ill-informed garbage, that statement verifies it.

To say it again: a state trooper who decides to act on state law in *direct violation* of local code is acting on dubious authority. His discretionary powers are at their most limited in that instance. These people saw code written that governs their actions; they followed it; someone else -- a cop -- did not follow it. Your claim is that he simply shouldn't have to, because even though the people of that municipality have made their minds up about what is appropriate, a state trooper can completely contradict them if he wants.

You talked about articulating things before a court. This is just the kind of philosophy that doesn't look great in court, or out of court. You said you'd arrest these people for being a dangerous distraction, but when somebody points out all the distracting things they *weren't* doing, it's "who fucking cares."

Who fucking cares if they followed the rules? Who fucking cares if a cop ignored that and arrests people who, according to their own code, did nothing wrong? Who fucking cares?

Look, if you're a cop, your job is tough. Mine isn't. Trust me. But these people did nothing wrong. You want to see them arrested for it, and when somebody points out they looked up the rules and followed the rules, you want to know who fucking cares.

also, the fact you keep repeating that you are a gay/black/mexican/jew & keep pimping the pol-sucking-ice, i'm gonna say you're probably whiter than danny fucking kaye.

if this was worthy of such action, why weren't any of the flag waving, banner hanging "support our troop" fascists ever assaulted/harassed?

The question of whether the sign posed an actual hazard is obviously open to debate. I believe, looking at its design (small letters on a wire-grid frame, specifically designed not to catch the wind) that a reasonable person would assume that the sign was not dangerous to people on the freeway.

Per someone else's comment about how "your right to wave your fists around ends at the tip of my nose" or somesuch, these students, using a well-designed sign, were nowhere near the tips of anyone's nose.

As to the idea that everyone should do what the police tell them to do all the time: yes, by all means, let's have a giant legal apparatus designed and operated by people with doctorates, and constrained by a various constitutions and charters, be completely subverted by non-elected cops whose job description requires a high school diploma or a GED. Good idea.

You sound like this country and society owes you something.

Then you're not listening. This country and society guarantee me a few things.

Just remember that if you break the law a police officer has the authority to take take away your Constitutional rights! That is a fact!

You are sorely mistaken.

[The Flex Your Rights Foundation Web site] is a joke. The propaganda they put out are not facts,

If you really believe that, please provide an example of incorrect information on their site.

You cannot request to be written a ticket. They have three choices:

1. leave,
2. receive a criminal citation which is a mandatory court appearance and then leave or
3. go to jail and then receive a criminal citation.

Are you kidding? First, a "ticket" is precisely what you referred to in #2. Second, someone suspected by an officer of wrongdoing does not have these options. Seriously: Take any of those three and consider whether the suspect may choose either of the others.

Here's specifically how you can make that request: "Sir/Ma'am, I understand that you are doing your job, and that if you believe I have done something wrong, it is your duty to issue me a citation."

They violated state statutes aforementioned above. It doesn't matter how you interpret the law that's up to the attorney's you pay for and the judge.

When it comes to judging guilt in he eyes of the law, it's up only to a judge or jury. If this officer truly believed those people had done wrong, he should have issued them a citation. Apparently, he did not.

If you try to make your case that you are not doing anything wrong, you should be arrested. Or maced.

IF, as you posit, these kids were in violation of some law or statute, why were they not cited for such?

Surely, if the officer in question had had any serious doubts as to the legality of their actions, that would have been his first obligation when they refused to comply with his demand to take down the sign, right? Yet, no ticket or citation was issued, even after FOUR additional SPD units arrived on the scene.

To say the students were "in violation", when no citation was issued is, simply put, ludicrous on its face; that's not how our legal system works. Furthermore, there's been no admission of guilt by any of the students, there has been no judicial hearing to determine guilt, and no sentencing from a judge to punish anyone for being guilty.

So, under these circumstances, how can any reasonable person come to any other conclusion than, "the students were NOT in violation of any municipal, county, or state ordinance or statute"?

Wow, good thing there aren't any other distracting signs on the Freeway... oh I don't know like the one's advertising burger joints, gas stations and hotels. Good thing there aren't giant yellow exit signs and big billboards on the side of the highway that say MOTEL 6! CASINO! BUY A CHEVY! to distract us from driving.

Give me a break. That sign is no more distracting than any of the others we see while driving on the freeway on any given day. Just because you (or the cops) don't like what it says doesn't make it a distraction.

They had four people holding it, and even if every one of them lost control and it did fall into traffic, it's mostly transparent, so it would not block the view of drivers the way a solid banner would.

For detailed instructions for making such a banner, see The Backbone Campaign's "freeway bannering" page.

Look it up. The case involved a man that fought with an arresting officer when he was arrested for a charge that the courts ruled he did not merit. The highest court in WA ruled that he was, however, guilty of resisting the officer and he went to jail for that! Hahahahahaha!

Look it up. The case involved a man that fought with an arresting officer when he was arrested for a charge that the courts ruled he did not merit. The highest court in WA ruled that he was, however, guilty of resisting the officer and he went to jail for that! Hahahahahaha!

Really -- asking for a badge number with which to identify an officer who seems to be doing wrong is "like yelling `I'm gonna tell mom'"? Give me a break.

Yeah, next time you're bullied by someone in uniform who doesn't like your message, just shut up and move along. If you have something to say that some highway patroller doesn't like, you don't need to be saying it anyway. Just remember that you're a child and the officer is your parent, and you'll do just fine. He knows what's best, and even if he doesn't, it's his place to tell you what to do.