Woman gets arrested for reading The Constitution

[FTL_Ian]

There has to be more too it then just their reading the Constitution.  I have a hard time believing that was the only justification for their arrest.  I should say actually that I don't want to believe that that was the only reason for their arrest.

We live in a police state.  The police don't need justification for their arrests; they can do whatever they want.   

[kola]

mvpel :Yes, we have the right to know, but the police are not obliged to discuss and debate the reason for an arrest to any random stranger hovering around them with a video camera.  If the videocam guy wants to know what the charges are, he can go to or phone the appropriate government office and inquire, and attend the arraignment hearing and any trial that might be held, perhaps even as a witness for the defense.

mvpel: It appears the jack-booted thugs didn't even tell the people they arrested what they were charged with. I thought cops have to tell you what you are being arrested for. Is it different in NH?

Kola

[mvpel]

mvpel: It appears the jack-booted thugs didn't even tell the people they arrested what they were charged with. I thought cops have to tell you what you are being arrested for. Is it different in NH?

Sure it "appears" that way, because the first half of the incident took place while the videographer was across the street taking shaky footage of the stone steps of a big building.

I'm quite certain that they'll be told at their arraignment, if not sometime before.  I have at least that much faith in the tarnished justice system in this country.

[lildog]

The difference is that there is a duly-enacted law against driving a car on public roads without a license, regardless of what you think of such a law.  There is no law against reading the Constitution, and cannot be.

If there where a duly-enacted law against reading the Constitution, would you be all cool with that?
There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that would prevent a law that said it is illegal to read the constitution.

Actually your wrong here.  The 1st amendment's freedom of speech would prohibit the government from being allowed to pass any such law on any level.

Lauren opposes drivers licenses on moral grounds.  People who are going to obey laws just because they are written down have no moral foundation because they accept the morals of the state.

While you can object to drivers licenses and car registrations on moral grounds, you cannot however make it a constitutional argument.  The reason being is that while the Constitution does specify what powers the FEDERAL government has, it does not do so with the state.  It only points out a series of things the states cannot do... ban freedom of speech, take away the right to bare arms etc.  Anything not specifically prohibited by the federal Constitution can be put into law on the state level.

You can argue that some state laws are immoral, yes.  But you cannot argue as you are trying to do here that it violated the federal constitution, because it doesn't.

[mvpel]

We live in a police state.  The police don't need justification for their arrests; they can do whatever they want.   

You insult people who actually do, or have, lived in police states, like my old friend Emma Turlo who snuck out of Romania after her womb was enslaved to the service of the government, among many, many other things.

They may not need justification for their arrests, but they do still, in most cases, need the appearance of justification for their arrests.  Darrow's win against the police who falsely arrested him the first time, and the firing of the officer he taped the second time, demonstrates that's true.

[kola]

mvpel: It appears the jack-booted thugs didn't even tell the people they arrested what they were charged with. I thought cops have to tell you what you are being arrested for. Is it different in NH?

Sure it "appears" that way, because the first half of the incident took place while the videographer was across the street taking shaky footage of the stone steps of a big building.

I'm quite certain that they'll be told at their arraignment, if not sometime before.  I have at least that much faith in the tarnished justice system in this country.

The one woman (being arrested) said she didnt know why she was being arrested. If that was your wife and you asked what she was arrested for would you accept being ignored by the goonsquad? Asking why someone is getting arrested is a reasonable request and goonies should answer to us as we pay their wages.

Kola

[mvpel]

Lauren opposes drivers licenses on moral grounds.  People who are going to obey laws just because they are written down have no moral foundation because they accept the morals of the state.

I applaud Laruen's and my other friends' absolutist stand against the licensing of the right to travel public roads in one's own property in non-commercial pursuits, and I hope that one day their efforts will bear fruit.

But meanwhile we're facing a seatbelt commission that is stacked with people who seem to be focused on finding the best way to persuade the legislature to pass a primary-enforcement seatbelt mandate.

I suspect, though, that a challenge to driver licensing and qualification laws would run into a Constitutional obstacle:

[Art.] 3. [Society, its Organization and Purposes.] When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender is void.

Whether driver licensing "ensures the protection of others" is debatable, of course, but it's not a gimme.

[lildog]

anyway..I would assume they arrested these "pinkys" for disrupting the political piggies speeches. Whta ticks me off if the goons never told the videocam guy what the charges were. All of those treasonic bastards ignored him. We have the right to know.

Yes, we have the right to know, but the police are not obliged to discuss and debate the reason for an arrest to any random stranger hovering around them with a video camera.  If the videocam guy wants to know what the charges are, he can go to or phone the appropriate government office and inquire, and attend the arraignment hearing and any trial that might be held, perhaps even as a witness for the defense.

Exactly!

6th Amendment states:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

The accused has the right to know the charges against them... not some random person asking the police what's going on.

I also went back to the article and searched for the woman's name to see if I could google and see what the actual charges were... unless I'm missing it, they don't list it.  Why?  Seems to me the author of the article is leaving it out for a reason.  As I said, there has to be more to this then we are seeing because I cannot believe someone was arrested for simply reading the Constitution.

[mvpel]

The one woman (being arrested) said she didnt know why she was being arrested.

Of course she said that.  If she'd said something like "I was standing here trying to irritate and provoke the pro-war demonstrators who have a lawfully-issued permit for this corner, and they asked me to leave or be quiet again and again, and then once they gave up on that they called the police and asked that I be removed from their permitted demonstration area.  I ignored the police too, just like I had ignored the permit-holders, so the cops handcuffed me and hauled me away," it wouldn't have made nearly as interesting video.

If that was your wife and you asked what she was arrested for would you accept being ignored by the goonsquad? Asking why someone is getting arrested is a reasonable request and goonies should answer to us as we pay their wages.

Of course I wouldn't willingly accept it, and it would make me very angry if I thought that my wife had done nothing wrong, perhaps to the point of them deciding to arrest me too as they did with Kat.  It would certainly make it into the text of my complaint against the department.

But was the videographer her husband?  If not, why are you making shit up?

But in any case, being rude to bystanders while in the process of arresting someone is not against police regulations.

[alohamonkey]

What I suspect really happened was that the pro-Iraqi-liberation folks had applied for and received a public gathering permit for that location for their demonstration, and this individual was probably removed by the police after being asked to leave by the holders of the permit.

I haven't watched the video yet but I've read a few articles about this.  I'm pretty sure that's what happened.  Or . . . she might have been arrested for a demonstration without a permit.  The Patriot Act (?) initiated quite a few more regulations required for public demonstrations. 

[Braddogg]

People who are going to obey laws just because they are written down have no moral foundation because they accept the morals of the state.

I obey the laws because I don't want to be assaulted and kidnapped . . . .

[alohamonkey]

You insult people who actually do, or have, lived in police states, like my old friend Emma Turlo who snuck out of Romania after her womb was enslaved to the service of the government, among many, many other things.

They may not need justification for their arrests, but they do still, in most cases, need the appearance of justification for their arrests.  Darrow's win against the police who falsely arrested him the first time, and the firing of the officer he taped the second time, demonstrates that's true.

You insult people who actually do, or have, lived in police states, like my old friend Emma Turlo who snuck out of Romania after her womb was enslaved to the service of the government, among many, many other things.

They may not need justification for their arrests, but they do still, in most cases, need the appearance of justification for their arrests.  Darrow's win against the police who falsely arrested him the first time, and the firing of the officer he taped the second time, demonstrates that's true.

True.  There are many places in the world that are much more oppressed than the U.S. - read any article about Myanmar right now.  But don't you agree that we are headed on the path toward a police state?  We're not there yet but we're on our way.  Legislation and police tactics have become much more oppressive since 2001.  And it's harder to reverse legislation than it is to defeat it before it passes. 

[mvpel]

True.  There are many places in the world that are much more oppressed than the U.S. - read any article about Myanmar right now.  But don't you agree that we are headed on the path toward a police state?  We're not there yet but we're on our way.  Legislation and police tactics have become much more oppressive since 2001.  And it's harder to reverse legislation than it is to defeat it before it passes.

Yes, when a police officer who is caught on tape threatening an innocent person with perjury is only fired because of his foul language, we are headed on the path to a police state.

This fact is why, although I admire it, I have to wonder at the impulse to submit oneself into the grinder of the criminal courts over a driver licensing law that's been on the books for over a hundred years (RSA 263:1, enacted in 1905 as RSA 86:4) when there's a seatbelt mandate bearing down on us for the 2009 session.

To each his or her own, I guess.  The fight for individual liberty will be fought and won on many different fronts.

[kola]

You make good points mvpel and I always appreciate your viewpoints and logic, although we sometimes disagree. 

I am more of a common sense type of guy than a common law guy. I feel that if I ask someone (in all due respect) a question that I should receive a legitimate answer. Latley that is hard to get from the goonies. That becomes frustrating to me and others and only escalates to bitterness towards these goonies.

Kola

[srqrebel]

This fact is why, although I admire it, I have to wonder at the impulse to submit oneself into the grinder of the criminal courts over a driver licensing law that's been on the books for over a hundred years (RSA 263:1, enacted in 1905 as RSA 86:4) when there's a seatbelt mandate bearing down on us for the 2009 session.

To each his or her own, I guess.  The fight for individual liberty will be fought and won on many different fronts.

That is a valid point -- going after the low hanging fruit probably gets quicker results.

But all one can hope for with that approach is to slow down the advance of tyranny.  I think Lauren is aiming at the root, while resisting the newest layers of tyranny only hacks at the branches.

Here is something else to think about: Putting the brakes on tyranny is a lot like turning down the heat when boiling frogs.  If you want the frogs to jump out of the kettle, perhaps the best thing one can do is to allow the heat to increase rapidly, and encourage the frogs to make the jump