I live in San Francisco and have seen people approached by the police for posting fliers on telephone poles. Like the incident in this video, no truncheon was involved. Unlike the person in this video, they gave their name and a ticket was issued, no big whoop.
And @Ereiamjh, yes, I think its very likely that a white soccer mom would have been approached by the police if seen flyering cars. And if she’d have screamed bloody murder about it, she’d have been arrested. I wish that wasn’t the case, but white people certainly aren’t spared from over reacting police.
If approached by a cop, even for goofy things like jaywalking (which has happened to me, and I’m white), or flyering, or even putting your trash out early, and you don’t give your name, it will escalate. You can argue that in some cases it escalates disproportionately for black people, but this really doesn’t look like a good example of that, to me at least. The incident in Ferguson, on the other hand…
Lets call it irony. Years ago and some since then we (NC) had a string of incidences involving what was later nick named “The Blue Light Bandit”. From what I remember of the original incidents someone was basically impersonating a police officer and pulling people over at night. It got to the point where a female motorist was being pulled over by a real officer, but she proceeded to drive slowly to the nearest gas station which was only about 2 miles down the road…needless to say she was fined and at least spent the night in lock up. Notably this happened 20ish years ago so just whipping out a cell phone wasn’t really a thing at the time.
And as @catgrin pointed out it, the reasoning for it, she drove past a dozen “safe” places to stop, open establishments that were well lit and occupied.
On a related note, this same ordinance was used to charge an Occupy protestor last year for projection mapping onto the Bank of America building. He challenged the ordinance saying it should not apply to light projections, lost the case in district court, and I believe is still appealing in superior court.
The only arrest that occurred in this story was Presley Obasohan, and he was arrested in Boston for sitting in at the doors, and blocking the entrance to the BofA handling his mortgage (he’d been fighting a foreclosure). Also, his story originally took place in Boston - where he was able to later projection map legally while playing the sound of him reading his letter to BofA.
Here’s the story as it continued in Charlotte, NC in 2012. Obasohan wasn’t there, it was The Backbone Campaign during a protest - but they played him reading his letter to BofA. This video shows that they were given polite, fair warning of a city ordinance (that they didn’t believe existed). At the time they were both projecting and had a vehicle standing in a business traffic lane. They also say in the video comments that they projected three separate times in Charlotte - this was the second time. So they went back again knowing it was locally illegal. They were never charged with anything.
What they were in conflict with was the city sign ordinance - not leafletting. That part of zoning is 71 pages long.
I’d really love for you to actually pull that quote, not just tell me it.
Even if you are correctly referring to what was said in court, it still falls under their signage ordinance. Basically, light projection is an “off-premises illuminated sign”- and it’s either an “advertisement” or a “temporary sign” (those both require permits). You might want to read their law before writing about it.
I helped defend the guy. The defendant was definitely cited under the same ordinance as the one cited in this article:
Sec. 15-1. - Distribution of handbills, advertisements, letters, pamphlets or other materials
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to throw, deposit, place or distribute any handbills, advertisements, cards, circulars, leaflets, folders, banners, letters, magazines or pamphlets in or upon private property.
So while I agree it may more appropriately fall under the sign ordinance, that is not what he was cited under.
It’s still the same ordinance though, albeit a different subsection. In both cases the police department is using an ordinance originally intended to protect private or personal property from unwanted leafleting-type of activities and applying it to protesting and civil rights issues.
Go back up and read the 1996 directive (posted by me). Back in 1996, part (b) was already being pursued if a complaint was made. Part (a) was being overlooked.
You should know that since you haven’t bothered to directly reference any of the court material (for a case you supposedly helped with), I’m not going to take what you say at face value. You’re an anonymous individual typing remotely, misidentifying what was referenced here, and then claiming the exact same thing applied in an unrelated case. You haven’t provided any backing material except your own anecdotal claims. It wasn’t until I looked up an UNCHARGED incident that you came back with the arrest.
Until you post court documents showing that 15-1 (a) was the related charge, we’re done. Fair warning: After that, all you’ll have done is have proven that a different charge from the one described here is what got Scottie Wingfield (who had been arrested at least in January, May, and August of that same year at Occupy protests for reasons not related to 15-1 (a) OR (b)) arrested in mid-October of 2012.
Here’s why those (a)'s and (b)'s matter, and you should know this if you were “helping” with someone’s defense. (Otherwise, you weren’t much direct help.)
This link takes you to the homicide statute for North Carolina. Sub (a) describes FIRST DEGREE MURDER. Sub (b) describes SECOND DEGREE MURDER. Don’t get the two confused.
I hope this isn’t meant to imply that North Carolina – or the American southeast/mid-Atlantic in general – is some sort of hive of rampant incest. Because that would be:
Inaccurate
Offensive
Ignorant
Hypocritical, considering that the crux of this entire discussion is, ultimately, stereotyping and bigotry.
But surely that’s not what you were implying, right? “Incestistan” seemed like the right word to invent for some other reason?
