Whenever crowd control and/or riots are involved, the police are always given extra latitude in their duties. I don't personally agree with this, but understand its necessity. It bothers me that crowds, even in this day and age, are suppressed (often forcibly) rather than deal with the issues that bring the crowds together. As I have grown, I have seen crowds quickly switch to riot mode, so my opinion has changed in that police should be given this extra latitude during the event to keep crowds under control, but that latitude should not be extended past the event. If you want a pithy version of that opinion, you can think in terms of club'em and cuff'em for now, but you gotta let them go free the next day, unless a legitimate crime can be enforced.

Charging people with things like, "Possession of burglary tools", or "Possession of an instrument of crime", ought to be unconstitutional. If I walk down the street with a few screwdrivers, and a pair of pliers to help an elderly neighbor with a fix -it job, what's to stop the police from harassing me with possession of burglary tools if they so choose? What about arresting me for having a cell phone? That can be used as an instrument of crime. What if they find a deck of cards in my pocket? I'm going down for "Possession of gambling instruments". It's arbitrary, ridiculous, and presupposes guilt where people are supposed to be presumed innocent.

There's a reason no one actually goes to jail on these charges. They are only used for detaining purposes. Many of the charges in this article remind me of this type of gratuitous charge.

Unfortunately, the articles don't give me a full understanding of all the events at hand. It almost sounds like the police are trying to lay unnecessary blame on these people, but that may be because I presume a person's innocence first. Perhaps, it is the perspective of the articles.

Now after all that preface, to answer the question, I don't think the person did anything wrong. The first article which compares the Iran protest tweets as being heralded and these tweets as being illegal is an apt comparison in my mind. The little guys that try to make changes in this country get squashed all the time, while corporate lobbyists buy the laws they want.

Curiously, if each of the protesters had a small radio device on their person and listened to the whereabouts of the police on their own, would any of this be an issue? Or would each of the protesters be arrested for possession of an instrument of crime? An instrument that allowed them to listen to open police communications.

Just to head off a counter argument at the pass. I can see someone proposing the following: Suppose you watch a person rob a bank, they flee the scene on foot and you tell them, cut down the next alley, take the next left after that and the police will never find you. Did you just aid a criminal?

Answer: Yes! Because the bank robber was a criminal in the first place. These guys doing the twittering weren't aiding criminals, if anything, they were directing protesters. We are allowed to protest things in this country. Our country was founded on the actions of protesters. You would have a hard time proving to me, gratuitous charges and all, that protesters are criminals.
Source(s):
Personal opinion only. :-)

Asker's Rating:

Permalink | Report