charges don't seem to fit the crime?

[geronimotwo]

most of this article is OT, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070205/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

but i found this one paragragh to be odd.

Republicans and Democrats carried out their clash as 10 members of "Code Pink, "an anti-war group, were arrested and charged with disorderly conduct during a protest in front of Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record)'s office in a building across the street from the Capitol. "They were absolutely compliant, peaceful," Sgt. Kimberly Schneider said of the protesters.

it made me wonder how many times we have seen the charges in the newspaper make the perp sound worse than the crime committed. does anyone have any examples?

 

[Desertdog]

"They were absolutely compliant, peaceful," Sgt. Kimberly Schneider said of the protesters.

I guess they didn't disperse when told to. You can be, seemingly, "compliant and peachful" (not causing a rucus, just wandering around) but if you don't leave when told to, you are traspassing.

 

[ilbob]

Makes you wonder what happened to our right to peacefully assemble?

Maybe it is hiding in the same place as the rest of the ten amendments.

Actually, we don't see violations of the third, so I guess one out of ten is better than zero out of ten.

 

[pacodelahoya]

Well, I for one don't have enough info to make a decision, were they on private property? Were they on the curtilage? It doesn't mater what it says in the Constitution, as long as there was a LAW against it.

 

[WeedWhacker]

People all over drive way too fast for road conditions.

Then why weren't they simply charged with trespassing?

 

[Jeff White]

It's called passive resistance and it's a common protest tactic. It's often used to make the police look they they are brutalizing the demonstrators when they are forced to physically remove them.

I don't have any idea what the DC laws are, but every disorderly conduct statute I've ever seen was pretty broadly written. It's pretty much a catch all law.

Jeff

 

[ilbob]

It's called passive resistance and it's a common protest tactic. It's often used to make the police look they they are brutalizing the demonstrators when they are forced to physically remove them.

Interesting how peaceful assembly ends up becoming "forced to physically remove".

IMO, it is brutalizing peaceful demonstrators if they are arrested for no real reason other than protesting. This is America. We are supposed to be allowed to protest. When did that morph into the cops will bust anyone that protests?

 

[El Tejon]

How does that state define Disorderly Conduct?

Here it would be Criminal Trespass, not Disorderly Conduct.

 

[Jeff White]

How is blocking access to a public building peaceful assembly? It seems to me it's criminal trespass. You may stand on the sidewalk with your signs and shout slogans and pass out fliers all day and all night. You may not force your views on someone else by blocking their access to a public building or impeding other people as they go about their lawful business. You have a to right free speech, but no where does the First Amendment say you have a right to be heard.

You have the right to say anything you want. But you can't force me to listen.

Commit a crime while you are protesting and expect to go to jail. It's that simple. Criminal Trespass is a crime.

Of course we both know that those protesters are intending to get arrested in order to increase the media attention they get. The crime of criminal trespass, the passive resistance, they are both elements in the protester's plan to get widespread attention to their cause. Do you really think there would be a news story for us to discuss here if the protesters simply stopped blocking the entrance and got back on the sidewalk when the police asked them to? Of course not. It's a much bigger story when there are arrests made.

What it boils down to is that you may say anything you want. But you may not stand in my way and force me to listen to you say it. I have my rights too.

Jeff