On national TV - while the cops developed and delivered a way to make the arrest as hidden as possible from the TV cameras, a plan involving a military-spec 4WD, a surprise arrest without any prior warning or normal arrest procedure being executed by guys in riot gear pushing the guy who is obviously not presenting a threat into said military vehicle.
His lawyer was on TV tonight.
Do you think that would’ve happened if the TV crews didn’t capture it? Thank fuck these rules aren’t yet being applied to journos cause if that happens your country is seriously fucked.
If this is what you associate with being “arrested int he style of a death squad” you are doing a SEVERE injustice to the hundreds of thousands if not millions over the past 70 years who have GENUINELY been “arrested” in the “style of a death squad.”
What a fucking wank. No those people were arrested by death squads, not in the style of death squads.
I was pointing out the absurdity of saying someone was “kidnapped” (when they were actually arrested) by the rhetorical device of showing how another scary word, “disappeared”, could be used as to describe the fact that they could no longer see him when he was taken to the police station.
I think it’s not so hard to understand, actually.
If you think that First Amendment rights are or should be absolute
If you’ve seen my screeds on gun ownership you’d know this doesn’t apply. In any case I’m still confused how you go about prioritising one constitutional right over another if they contradict, especially one as integral to democratic freedom as the right to assemble.
I don’t understand how the method of the arrest creates fear and paranoia.
Well instead of sidestepping my assertion that you’ve never talked to anyone from places like that, maybe you should talk to someone from a place like that? I have some friends who are Iranian and I can guarantee you that the arrest methods employed by security forces are part of why people fear them.
You’re out of your mind if you really think he disappeared into thin air when he was arrested. All you needed to do was keep watching and you would see that CNN showed live footage of him in the back of a police van waiting to be taken away. Someone else was arrested later at the same spot and was placed in the back of the same van. You could see the two young men having a conversation in the back of the van as well. This whole story has been blown way out of proportion.
The CNN reporter on the scene says that the police told the media the disperse, even though they are exempt from the curfew. If the cops have nothing to hide then why are they trying to clear the media?
It’s not about “prioritizing” one constitutional right over another. It’s about defining the limits on the right. If you accept that there are limits on it, I’m not sure why you think we are not “free” because of those limits.
I’m apparently blind. That doesn’t change the fact that I brought up the Constitution in response to your question of the order’s lawfulness.
I wasn’t sidestepping. What specifically about the arrest methods frightens them? Have you heard anyone refer to either the speed of the arrest or the kind of vehicle used as being frightening separately from the fact of the arrest, the reason for the arrest, or the expected or feared outcome of the arrest?
Not at all. I’m trying to understand what people object to here. Because it was lawful to arrest Mr. Kent, the only possible basis for objection is the method of the arrest. But I don’t see anything here that meaningfully distinguishes this arrest from any other. Maybe I’m wrong.
Find me a video of another arrest taking place in such a manner, featuring at least two of the things I mentioned in this comment. It shouldn’t be hard considering this isn’t the first time these kinds of protests/arrests have happened recently.
On national TV - while the cops developed and delivered a way to make the arrest as hidden as possible from the TV cameras, a plan involving a military-spec 4WD, a surprise arrest without any prior warning or normal arrest procedure being executed by guys in riot gear pushing the guy who is obviously not presenting a threat into said military vehicle.
I don’t think that would present them much difficulty, given that cops in Ferguson beat a guy up and then charged him with destruction of police property for bleeding on their uniforms.
Doesn’t the Constitution also protect Americans from extra judicial killings by their government? Fairly easy to show that “law” has been broken multiple times in the recent past for “reasons”.
Or is the state allowed to pick and choose which parts they want to enforce and how? Or do those rules simply not apply to the state at all?
I find it amazing that the US constitution clearly and unambiguously protects the rights of people to peaceably assemble - yet blanket curfews are apparently constitutional.
Meanwhile the constitution only allows people to bear arms as part of a well-regulated militia - yet this is somehow interpreted to mean that everyone can own a gun with very few restrictions.
And the manner of this ‘arrest’ is ridiculous. If he’s breaking the law, the police should approach, read him his rights and take him away, using force only when the ‘offender’ resists the arrest.
It’s no different to nuns chaining themselves to the front gates of nuclear weapons bases to protest the absurdity of government sponsored weapons capable of ending human life on earth. Disobey the law to make a public point and generate bad publicity for the government / police by forcing them to display their unreasonableness through their actions, but expect to get arrested.
