G20 Riots, Arrests and Etc.

[Our Wasted Years]

OK so there are a few videos floating around YouTube, and I'm sure other websites, about this G20 meeting. Well I've watched a few and then I came along this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etv8YEqaWgA&feature=popt00us12

Seems to me like the Constitution is not in effect anymore or something.

What is your view on that video and these riots, arrests and etc that are going on?

 

[Nicoleta01]

I can't view the youtube video, but riots at the G20 meetings is nothing new.

 

[Juicy Jazzy]

People are just taking advantage of the public exposure that the G20 brings.

 

[Golbat-Man]

Those people aren't trying to prove anything. They're just anarchists who believe that getting parking tickets is a restriction of "the man". All they want is attention.

 

[Scarlet Sky]

They are being arrested for unnecessary VIOLENCE. Do those fools think people are going to go with their arguement if they use violence and shout over the other side to make sure only ONE opinion is heard?

Actually protesting the presence of Gaddafi and Imanutjob (Iran's President etc.) is something I can agree with.

 

[PokemonHero]

From what I can tell from this video, it seems that they may have been bystanders. However, they were told that they were assembled unlawfully and that they needed to disperse. They were given fair warning before the police went in. While I'm sure that police could've given them more time to disperse, they were well within the law here.

And now, on a much lighter note, it appears that Pittsburgh Penguins fans are still celebrating their team's Stanley Cup victory, even amid all the demonstrations.

 

[DerMißingno]

What were they doing on Pitt's campus? The summit didn't take place there.

 

[RavenKingSage]

Those people aren't trying to prove anything. They're just anarchists who believe that getting parking tickets is a restriction of "the man". All they want is attention.

Ditto to this.

 

[Scarlet Sky]

I personally agree with protesting to an extant... G20, UN, and G8 are all pathetically weak, and ALWAYS try diplomacy. Some times diplomacy is not an option. As for any arrests going on I will say violence is unneeded. eace:

 

[RavenKingSage]

G20, UN, and G8 are all pathetically weak

Retarded is more like it. Always, ALWAYS trying diplomacy when they should know it won't work, how's that for stupid?

 

[Scarlet Sky]

Retarded is more like it. Always trying diplomacy, how's that for stupid?

I was trying to be "nice". But your words are more spot on. So I guess ditto. :-|

 

[DerMißingno]

Those people aren't trying to prove anything. They're just anarchists who believe that getting parking tickets is a restriction of "the man". All they want is attention.

What makes you so sure about their intentions?

 

[Our Wasted Years]

From what I can tell from this video, it seems that they may have been bystanders. However, they were told that they were assembled unlawfully and that they needed to disperse. They were given fair warning before the police went in. While I'm sure that police could've given them more time to disperse, they were well within the law here.

And now, on a much lighter note, it appears that Pittsburgh Penguins fans are still celebrating their team's Stanley Cup victory, even amid all the demonstrations.

Umm they have a right to a peaceful assembly like every other American. Unless it's Chief of Police>Constitution.

 

[Big Lutz]

Umm they have a right to a peaceful assembly like every other American. Unless it's Chief of Police>Constitution.

I believe you do need a permit to assemble, that does not have anything to do with the Constitution or Chief of Police that is how lawful assemblies are conducted. From everything I read they did not have a permit and when the police approached them they became violent.

 

[DerMißingno]

I believe you do need a permit to assemble, that does not have anything to do with the Constitution or Chief of Police that is how lawful assemblies are conducted. From everything I read they did not have a permit and when the police approached them they became violent.

You don't need a permit to peacefully assemble.

 

[Big Lutz]

You don't need a permit to peacefully assemble.

The Pittsburgh Police and Associated Press disagree with you, atleast pertaining to this event.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/sep2009/db20090924_029323.htm

The marchers did not have a permit and, after a few blocks, police declared it an unlawful assembly. They played an announcement over a loudspeaker telling people to leave or face arrest and then moved in to break up the crowd.

Now under various laws, it can be declared a Unlawful Assembly if the protesters are either breaking the law, or disturbing the public peace. I have a feeling "Disturbing the Public Peace" fits here.

 

[hurristat]

I believe you do need a permit to assemble, that does not have anything to do with the Constitution or Chief of Police that is how lawful assemblies are conducted. From everything I read they did not have a permit and when the police approached them they became violent.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The Constitution, Bill of Rights, Amendment 1. If it is stated that explicitly, you probably don't need a permit to assemble. They do say the word peaceably, so the police can keep it under control. But I can't see needing a permit.

 

[DerMißingno]

The Pittsburgh Police and Associated Press disagree with you, atleast pertaining to this event.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/sep2009/db20090924_029323.htm

I guess that's my mistake then. See I wasn't going by the Associated Press, I was going by the Constitution of the United States of America. I almost forgot that they don't use that anymore.

 

[Big Lutz]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The Constitution, Bill of Rights, Amendment 1. If it is stated that explicitly, you probably don't need a permit to assemble. They do say the word peaceably, so the police can keep it under control. But I can't see needing a permit.

And by forcing the groups to have a permit you are not prohibiting the right to peacefully assemble, but placing in a proper legal avenue so that if need be protection can be provided to the protesters if the protest gets out of control, as well as various other safety concerns.

I am sure they can take this up in court, they will lose however.

Anyway for further information I point you over to the Legal Dictionary.

A meeting of three or more individuals to commit a crime or carry out a lawful or unlawful purpose in a manner likely to imperil the peace and tranquillity of the neighborhood.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees individuals the right of freedom of assembly. Under the Common Law and modern statutes, however, the meeting of three or more persons may constitute an unlawful assembly if the persons have an illegal purpose or if their meeting will breach the public peace of the community. If they actually execute their purpose, they have committed the criminal offense of riot.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Unlawful+assembly

I guess that's my mistake then. See I wasn't going by the Associated Press, I was going by the Constitution of the United States of America. I almost forgot that they don't use that anymore.

Seeing how we have had permits for protests as long as I remember, we seem to have been going by it for quite some time. Seeing how it has most likely also been challenged and debated in a court of law, I will also say it passes Constitutional muster at this point. And it has been most likely debated and looked over by people who know alot more about Constitutional law than you.

 

[Our Wasted Years]

I believe you do need a permit to assemble, that does not have anything to do with the Constitution or Chief of Police that is how lawful assemblies are conducted. From everything I read they did not have a permit and when the police approached them they became violent.

Umm so every group of people that want to assemble, at lets say a park, in the USA, have to go out and get a permit from the city so they are able to sit there and hang out. Cool I'll remember that next time I'm out with my friends at a park, but I'd rather just stick with the Constitution seeing as I don't need any permits because I already have a RIGHT to do that.