Added: April 15, 2008 We reached out to hundreds of rush hour drivers with our beautiful brand new banner (5' x 21' CHECK IT OUT!!), until the CHP showed up an hour into our truth action.
The CHP officer violated our First Amendment rights by insisting that we leave the bridge. We reluctantly complied, but that's not the end of the story... Stay tuned for what happens next in PART 2!
Poster Comment:
Cop keeps telling the cameraman 'put the camera down', and when asked what law forbids them from holding signs, he tells the sign holders they will be charged with PC 148 if they don't comply, completely bogus: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/appndxa/penalco/penco148.htm Penal Code Resisting, Delaying, or Obstructing Officer 148. (a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment
Their hearts were in the right place, but the banner wasn't.
imo it is not a good idea to distract drivers. People have a hard enough time as it is, just keeping it between the ditches. No point making it even more risky.
If I had been a cop, that is what I would have told them. But they seem to prefer being unreasonable and, in general, dicks.
That's a BS excuse. billboards are 10 times bigger than the sign.
its not cops jobs to prevent 'potential' hypothetical scenarios. do you agree with banning cell phones while driving like CA has done? No evidence they cause accidents either, just emotionalism nanny-state attitudes.
the cop never did answer what specific law forbade them from holding a sign. the law he cited is bogus.
That's a BS excuse. billboards are 10 times bigger than the sign.
Yes, but people know billboards are there. They are on the sides of the highways and it takes a conscious effort to read them.
The banner they used was not so easy to ignore. THey wanted to create a scene to help their cause (which I also believe in). It could have been handled better, both from the demonstrators side and the LEO side.
You said "its not cops jobs to prevent 'potential' hypothetical scenarios. "
OK then, dont arrest DUIs anymore. The DUI didnt cause an accident, yet... But having seen the bodies covered with tarps on more than 1 occasion, and people laying dead on the shoulder, and lots of trashed cars that you just know has at least 1 dead body in it, I have seen the results of nitwits behind the wheel.
It's not a game. We lose almost as many people in 1 year on the road as we lost in 10 years of Viet Nam.
"do you agree with banning cell phones while driving like CA has done? No evidence they cause accidents either, just emotionalism nanny-state attitudes. "
I dont know enough about it to comment. If there is no evidence, what studies can you cite?
"the cop never did answer what specific law forbade them from holding a sign. the law he cited is bogus. "
The law is genuine, the application was bogus, IMO. There are also laws against creating traffic hazards. CA is rather scrict about that. Why he didn't cite them, I don't know.
no, DUI is illegal in itself and is not a non crime. whereas, holding the banner is not a crime. with that logic the state could ban all protests under the guise of 'preventing (enter here,_______catastrophe XYZ'
as far as the phones, i dont need to cite evidence of no danger, they should have to cite evidence to justify their 'law'.
The law the cop cited was not even related to what the people were doing. he couldnt cite a real cause because there was none. he should be arrested, actually, not them.
no, DUI is illegal in itself and is not a non crime. whereas, holding the banner is not a crime. with that logic the state could ban all protests under the guise of 'preventing (enter here,_______catastrophe XYZ'
I agree, holding a banner is not a crime.
Creating a traffic hazard is illegal. Like I said, I dont know why the cop didnt cite this. IMO he was probably just lazy and didnt want to think too hard. It's like the parents saying "because I said so!" to justify what they want. That used to piss me off when I was a kid, and it pisses me off when those in .gov authority use it WITHOUT CAUSE.
Like I said, it could have been handled better, but because the cop used the "because I said so" argument, it escalated. It's his fault, he should have known better.
Imagine this:
You come upon this situation. Both sides are reasonable, especially the LEO. All you have to do is say "We have no problem with you or your banner. But you are creating a traffic hazard. Please take your banner to a safer location, we cannot let you put it where is causes distractions. It's not safe."
If I was a demonstrator, I'd have said "no problem", because the cop made a good point.
End of problem, and no hard feelings.
"as far as the phones, i dont need to cite evidence of no danger, they should have to cite evidence to justify their 'law'."
If that wasn't done, then shame on CA for allowing it to happen. But I am sure that with a little effort I can find some good studies that show cellphone use is a major distraction.
It appears from your positions on these 2 issues that you tend to side with the state over personal liberty. Why?
They are very basic issues. holding a sign does not present a traffic hazard, that is a stretch. parking an auto on the shoulder and standing on the hood waving a sign, Yes that might qualify.
re: cell phones, regulating personal behavior under the guise of 'safety' to the point of barring peoples habits is obscene. the socialists who propose this nonsense dont give a damn about you or anyone, or your 'safety'. theyre just revenue hungry control freaks,.
dare I ask what you think about 'child protective services' agencies??
It appears from your positions on these 2 issues that you tend to side with the state over personal liberty. Why?
I dont equate personal liberty with the right to act stupid. Liberty requires common sense. Otherwise you have a bunch of liberated dumbasses doing dumbass things. Why put others at risk needlessly? Why do it at all?
"They are very basic issues. holding a sign does not present a traffic hazard, that is a stretch. parking an auto on the shoulder and standing on the hood waving a sign, Yes that might qualify."
OK, we can disagree on what is a hazard. Leave it to a jury of ones peers to decide. But it shouldnt even make it to a jury, if both sides are reasonable.
"dare I ask what you think about 'child protective services' agencies?? "
They are great. Super, especially the ones in Florida. (sarcasm there)
What I said was: "Like I said, it could have been handled better, but because the cop used the "because I said so" argument, it escalated. It's his fault, he should have known better.
Imagine this:
You come upon this situation. Both sides are reasonable, especially the LEO. All you have to do is say "We have no problem with you or your banner. But you are creating a traffic hazard. Please take your banner to a safer location, we cannot let you put it where is causes distractions. It's not safe."
If I was a demonstrator, I'd have said "no problem", because the cop made a good point.
End of problem, and no hard feelings. "
There is a risk:benefit ratio. The risk: an accident caused by the distraction. Ask an EMT how many low speed fatalities he/she has seen. You'd be surprised. The benefit? Someone gets to feel like a persecuted VIP. There were better ways to handle this.