Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What happens after you’re arrested at a protest in New York

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 157 posts

Re: What happens after you’re arrested at a protest in New York

#141

Post by harryh »

spiritplumber wrote: post #111
harryh wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first amendment doesn't apply to my employer as I work for a private company, so you are right there. But is that true for cops who work for the government? I'm honestly not sure.

The first amendment does apply to your employer in that he can't muzzle you, or have you beaten up from speaking out. The worst your employer can do is fire you, which happens often, and that's fine.

In fact my employer can muzzle me. I've signed various documents over the years that prevent my from speaking about my employer (or past employers) in various ways.

And the fact that my employer can't have me beaten up has nothing to do with the 1st amendment. That would be assault no matter what their motivation.

Re: What happens after you’re arrested at a protest in New York

#142

Post by task_queue »

tomjen3 wrote: post #126
task_queue wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell me more about how I'm the real racist for pointing out that the system is intractably racist. If this makes you uncomfortable, you need to come to terms with history and the present reality. We (white people) have been at the reigns and designed the legal system from the start to give us an advantage. I'd say we have to hold some accountability for maintaining a system we knew was broken for too long. I'd also g…

>We (white people) have been at the reigns That is the racists part. Some people are in power, they are white but that doesn't mean you get to slam white people anymore than you get to slam all black people for being criminals. Downvoting me won't make the former any less racists than the last.

Show me where I slammed white people. No where did I slam white people.

I'm sorry if having to take responsibility for the system we've been handed and benefit from makes you uncomfortable.

But since mentioning race is inherently racist, we can go back to not mentioning race and pretending we're a post-racial society while the boys in blue continue to knock down doors and arrest every black person on the street corner because, by cop heuristics, they're all guilty.

It's almost as if being asked to acknowledge the racism of the system bothers you in some way. A way to get rid of that bad feeling is to put your color-blinders on and pretend society is race-blind as well. I can do that, too, and never once have to face the injustice of or account for the system I maintain.

PS I can't downvote.

Re: What happens after you’re arrested at a protest in New York

#143

Post by crimsoneer »

mschuster91 wrote: post #45

> This was super distressing for a lot of people, as those belongings usually included wallet, phone, and keys. So after you are done at Central Booking, you are basically left with no possessions or money, and no way to get into your home or contact anyone. Please, someone tell me this is fucking illegal.

From a UK law enforcement perspective - completely illegal if it were over here. Not only can you only keep property being used as evidence - which your mobile phone could be - but a risk assessment is conducted at the end of detention to make sure the detainee can get home safe, which would definitely include making sure they have cash/medication/etc, and making sure they're not suicidal.

But yeah, coming from the UK, this whole thing strikes me as a little mad. But I suspect the author is omitting some details for dramatic effect. It would very much surprise me if it wasn't made very clear what she was being arrested for, and the officer explained her rights etc. I'm also sceptical about the "u turns to show off" - in the UK, all police vehicles have incident recorders, so showing off for shits and giggles is dangerous and likely to get you fired. It#s I'd be surprised if there weren't similar devices. It's also made exceedingly clear you don't post pictures on duty in social media unless it's approved etc.

Nonetheless, sounds all very horrible, and it shouldn't be. I like to think we do it a lot better.

Re: What happens after you’re arrested at a protest in New York

#144

Post by task_queue »

eru wrote: post #67
wozniacki wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please, someone tell me this is fucking illegal. I find these outbursts of genuine surprise and bewilderment amusing, in the best possible way. What I'm about to suggest is not meant to remedy or suggest alternate remedies to the workings of the criminal justice system as it currently operates. I'm merely expressing amusement at the colossal unfamiliarity of most of the generally law-abiding public (Black, White, His…

> I can't but find people who expect an uniform carriage of justice, across all wealth levels, across all demographics and in all instances of law-breaking, to be nothing short of deranged. To be honest, the US is particularly bad in that regard.

When I think of other tiered justice systems I'm reminded of third world countries where things are literally two-tiered.

Suddenly that picture of a luxury condominium overlooking a favela is less hyperbole and more of an accurate depiction of what we're doing over here.

Re: What happens after you’re arrested at a protest in New York

#145

Post by joshstrange »

mckoss wrote: post #122
Johnie wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I've read, there had been plenty of warnings all day. >The group was on East 17th Street about halfway down the block when police took a stand and ordered protesters to get on the sidewalk. Before the march, while the group was in Union Square, police handed out flyers and used loudspeakers to warn protesters that they would be arrested if they didn't stay on the sidewalk. http://7online.com/news/more-than-…

The right to peaceable assembly in the First Amendment of the Constitution SHOULD mean that the government cannot require a permit to do so (otherwise, it wouldn't be a RIGHT). If a large number of people want to get from point A to point B, even on foot, an accommodation of normal traffic laws should be made to allow that. Why the hell are police arresting peaceful protestors?

I agree, it's not a right if you have to ask permission first. OTOH I can see why cities require it because as another comment pointed out a random guy could sit/stand in the middle of the street and call it a protest but I still feel there are better ways to address that other than requiring a permit. A permit requires a level of planning that is not needed for a lot of these protests that get organised over social media and the like.

Re: What happens after you’re arrested at a protest in New York

#146

Post by PhasmaFelis »

waqf wrote: post #107
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Privilege theory generally asserts that everyone has some privilege in some situations. It's just that there's a lot of imbalance between groups in terms of how often and how much your personal privilege benefits you. I think you're attacking a strawman here. I'm sure there are people who say that women have no privilege ever and men have all of it all the time, you shouldn't judge the entire concept based on the ang…

Why are you so sure that the 15-year-old Tumblrinas are not the true Scotsmen? I mean, it's clear that you're defending a more reasonable version of the claim and GP is attacking a more unreasonable one, but it's not clear to me which of those is going to win out as the common understanding associated with the expression "privilege theory".

I think that the "common understanding" of pretty much any political idea, no matter where it lies on the spectrum, is going to be mostly composed of soundbites and tweets and memes, because those are the easiest to ingest and repost. It's easy to get a strawman idea from that, but to get to to the heart of an idea you need to read the TL;DR stuff too.

If you're afraid that the superficially furious people are going to win out over the reasonable, thoughtful people on issue X, then the best thing you can do is try to understand issue X and promote the reasonable approach to it. Just saying "All Xs suck as proven by this misspelled Tumblr post" will only further polarize the dialogue and help shout down (or radicalize) the reasonable people.

Re: What happens after you’re arrested at a protest in New York

#147

Post by danieltillett »

spiritplumber wrote: post #129
danieltillett wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was 50 years ago - now it involves a lot of cranes and comfortable seats.

It involves a couple of cranes and a lot of moving stuff that's too light to justify bringing the crane over but still seriously heavy, at least where I was (Italy).

I don’t think there is too much non-containerized goods coming in through the major US ports these days. Handling goods via small ports are still back-breaking work around the world though.

Re: What happens after you’re arrested at a protest in New York

#148

Post by Johnie »

mckoss wrote: post #122
Johnie wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I've read, there had been plenty of warnings all day. >The group was on East 17th Street about halfway down the block when police took a stand and ordered protesters to get on the sidewalk. Before the march, while the group was in Union Square, police handed out flyers and used loudspeakers to warn protesters that they would be arrested if they didn't stay on the sidewalk. http://7online.com/news/more-than-…

The right to peaceable assembly in the First Amendment of the Constitution SHOULD mean that the government cannot require a permit to do so (otherwise, it wouldn't be a RIGHT). If a large number of people want to get from point A to point B, even on foot, an accommodation of normal traffic laws should be made to allow that. Why the hell are police arresting peaceful protestors?

If I'm reading what you're saying correctly, this is EXACTLY how it works.

The protesters were allowed to peacefully assemble in Union Square. The protesters were allowed to peacefully march on the sidewalk to anywhere they wanted to go in the city.

What the protesters were NOT allowed to do is obstruct traffic and walk in the middle of the street without a permit. The people that were arrested were the ones that were walking on the streets and blocking traffic.

You only need a permit if you intend to march on the streets. It's the same as you or I needing a permit to host a parade through Midtown.

Re: What happens after you’re arrested at a protest in New York

#149

Post by aggie »

Johnie wrote: post #33
MarkG509 wrote: post #26

Perhaps it time someone built a web site where the opinions, comments, and especially actions/votes, of every politician running for office, from City Council on up, were tracked. Scoring the politicians based on their support for the constitution and especially human rights, plus encouraging the vote, could fix this after just an election cycle or two.

How about try to increase voter turnout first? No amount of public education and politician tracking will be useful if only 1/3 of eligible voters actually vote. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/11...

In my mind the issue is not absolute turnout but representative turnout. If only 1% of people voted but they were a good representation of the varied interests of the population, that would be just fine.

The problem today is that certain groups (poor, young, ethnic minorities) are less likely to vote and thus have less of a voice as a group. There are systematic changes that could be made to encourage more representative voting, such as easier voter registration practices and a national voting holiday. Australia even imposes a small fine for not voting, which surely would not sit well with many in America but would probably be a good thing for our republic.

Re: What happens after you’re arrested at a protest in New York

#150

Post by wlesieutre »

spiritplumber wrote: post #111
harryh wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first amendment doesn't apply to my employer as I work for a private company, so you are right there. But is that true for cops who work for the government? I'm honestly not sure.

The first amendment does apply to your employer in that he can't muzzle you, or have you beaten up from speaking out. The worst your employer can do is fire you, which happens often, and that's fine.

The fact that your employer can't have you beaten up is because assault is illegal, not because of your first amendment rights. The first amendment protects you from being thrown in jail by the government for your speech.
Post reply on HN