RNC: Protestors given back their freedom -- law enforcement had no basis to detain them

Ref.

War is not an excuse to ignore the constitution

Supreme Court already said,

"we have long . . . made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens." 124 US 2633 and "Even the war power does not remove constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties." 290 US 398

They've had plenty of time since the constitution was passed to "get this right." The government entities even have insurance to cover these liabilities; yet, for some reason the officers continue to act in a manner that is at odds with the constitution.

Law enforcement contribute to the problem

Strange how law enforcement will direct, encourage, and communicate in a manner that is fairly explicit; yet when that information is relied upon, the public's response to that direction becomes the basis to arrest.

Police told marchers they would have to stay on the sidewalk and obey traffic laws. But within two minutes, they ordered the crowd to disperse or face arrest. "Police likely created the impression among participants that the march had officials sanction," Beesch said. Ref

In other words, the police could arrest them for not listening to directions; and then listening to the directions.

Why isn't the law enforcement required to stick by their word? Oh, that's right, the courts have for so long sanctioned lying by police officers that the public, not the officers, have to put up with the consequences of these out of admissible inconsistent out of court statements.

Frivolous, trumped up charges

What happens when the public is rounded up, and there is a long-spontaneous public outrage against this police misconduct?

Because the march was so brief and protesters were nonviolent, "no useful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution of any cases," Beesch said. Ref

Using the government's words, we are led to believe that mass demonstrations against an out of control government, once protected under the constitution, are still the basis to detain, arrest, and lock people away.

SO, where's the "number of minute-threshold" that the courts are going to rely on to say, "If you demonstrate spontaneously longer than X-minutes, you should have gotten a permit."

Huh--go back in time to ask permission to express your outrage at an out of control government that invades other countries where there is no evidence of an imminent threat?

Looks like the government wants another lawsuit. This would be really simple if you idiots in government simply read the constitution and the Geneva Convention.

But no, rather than comply with the law, this government uses threats to silence the public into asking no questions.

Law enforcement and the FBI hope to continue shifting attention from what they failed to do prior to 9-11.

42 USC 1983.

Questions which government needs to be lawfully compelled to respond to in writing, and signed Why do we have to keep remind you what is clearly promulgated in the Constitution? Why are there not some increasing levels of sanctions to ensure that law enforcement face lawful, meaningful, and personal consequences for violating the constitution and Bill of Rights? The public is swiftly denied their freedoms without adequate evidence or constitutional foundation; why are officers not similarly lawfully subject to the same immediate arbitrary consequences as the event unfolds? Why are officers afforded greater priviledge than the public when it comes to imposing consequences for their conduct; by their conduct, they show they are not better than those they allegedly "serve." The public engages in lawful protest and is detained; yet the officers engage in unlawful violations of the constitution and are put on probation. Why should the public believe there is a sense of justice when protected activities face grave sanctions; but official government misconduct clearly faces meaningless sanctions? If the public is asked to "put up with officer misconduct," why aren't the officers lawfully required to "put up with public taking the law into their own hands" and immediately, as should be protected by statute, detaining the officers for violating the constitution? Why is the public forced to assent to arbitrary government action; yet the government creates for itself immunities and barriers to misconduct? As a barrier to inappropriate conduct, why isn't the Bill of Rights given the same level of respect as the "officer immunity clauses" in insurance policies covering government liability coverage? The public has to assent immediately to officers, yet the officers have plenty of time to rally their brethren and the government counsel to defend themselves. Why is the public held to a standard of "must immediately comply with officer orders," but the officers are glacially held to account? Why are officers afforded plenty of time because they have "rights as individuals to defend themselves," but the public must immediately comply without any time to consider their options? The public has the right under the Constitution to freely assemble, per time-place,-manner considerations; yet this exercise of rights is deemed to be a basis to detain. However, officers, after they commit abuses or engage in misconduct, are actively rewarded for exercising their rights to consult with counsel. Why are officers afforded both the protection of the government and the right to defend themselves as public officials; yet the public, when it exercises these same rights the officer enjoys, is detained and treated as a threat? Why are there no swift consequences on officers at the moment they engage in this conduct? Why are citizen efforts to simply "go about our business and exercise our rights" treated as threats and the basis to detain? Why isn't the burden of proof put back on government? When are we going to start getting the officers to start explaining themselves without testilying in court? Before the courts, the public is presumed to "know the law." Yet, how many more times does the public have to remind you what is the bill of rights? Why is the public "presumed to know the law," but the officers are treated as if "it is ok if we remind them" and do nothing about violations of the constitution? Why is law enforcement continuing to do this despite "all this oversight"? Why do we have to keep reminding you, in law enforcement, and the Judicial branch of this reality clearly promulgated in the constitution? Why are state-level sanctions under POST apparently insufficient catalyst for officers to ensure their plans, training, and actions are consistent with both the constitution and clearly promulgated caselaw? What "new solutions" and "new approaches" need to be taken to ensure that the public is not interfered with, and their rights, as fought for "in Iraq" are actually preserved here at home? What solution does the "leadership" in the law enforcement have to solve this problem? Who is the United States [or any officer called up from law enforcement into active duty] to proclaim anywhere that we are "fighting for freedom in Iraq," when those rights, when exercised, become the basis to detain, arrest, and interrogate the public?