Can the mayor and cops force event attendees to remain and not leave an event?

[deepdiver]

HHHmmmmm... Interesting. I do not know the lay of the land in and around Baltimore to understand the flow of the riots like I did in Ferguson. However, it appears that the initial "protests" and its signage was once again funded by the usual suspects as one might say. There are certainly movements that are empowered by fostering such unrest and lawlessness. And there are certainly others empowered by putting down such "protests".

 

[hovercat]

I would call this situation a public service. A large version of a cop pulling over a white lady driving a Volvo at 3AM in the projects. "Are you lost? Just follow me, ma'am and I will take you to the freeway...". The officer had no right or reason to interfere with her travels. Did it because it was right, or saved him paperwork later, or she reminded him of his mother, whatever.
Police can restrict access in an emergency situation.

 

[skidmark]

Update: Live news radio.

Gov of MD saying he activated the MD Nat'l Guard. Also, declares the people of Baltimore deserve safety. (But, apparently not against having your neck broken while in police custody.)

Speaking now is a senior cop of MD state police. Promises assistance, and makes reference to up to 5000 law-enforcement from the mid-Atlantic region. That was not a typo--he said 5K.

Now, a spokesman from the MD Natl Guard is speaking, mentioning 5K troops.

Jeezus!! I don't think George Washington took 5K troops with him to put down the whiskey rebellion in western PA! What do these people think is going on? An armed rebellion? Do the math. Between Guard, regional cops, state police, and city cops that has got to be at least one infantry division worth of troops being threatened to descend on the city.

They're only one step from declaring martial law.

Only half a division. And how many of them are trained in restoring order in areas of urban discord? (As a veteran of the late1960s urban discord scene allow me to share an observation: it's not how many troops you have but where and how you deploy them. Monsieur L'Enfant's street plan for DC might have been good for unfocused mobs running down the street yeling "Off with their heads!" but sucked for dealing with folks burning and pillaging. (I do wish they'd get that right: Pillage, then burn.)

Far better they get some more moms involved. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sr8rdYUOqgw

Does anybody else get the shudders thinking about bringing in cops from all over? Shades of Katrina/NOLA.:uhoh:

Toilet paper, Pringles, and Oreos (in that order)? Back in the day they looted liquor stores to get the makings of Molitov cocktails.

stay safe.

 

[OC for ME]

For context.

I'm an Orioles Fan; ...

Any laws broken here?

Not rhetorical at all, IMHO. There is a great need to know when, where, how, under what conditions, and for how long the .gov can restrict/infringe on your legal rights.

The same legal construct could have been applied in the most golden of OC states.

The only flaw I can see in the whole thing is that given what we know did happen and what the BPD did not do, someone who tried to leave would have a good time presenting a case of why they could not be guilty of obstructing justice/impeding police in the performance of their duty. (They'd lose, but they'd have fun while presenting their case.)

stay safe.

Yes, it was a rhetorical question. BPD is not anywhere near a reputable LE institution. All one need to do is to do a wee bit of research on BPD.

The Brutality of Police Culture in Baltimore

Years of abuses are every bit as egregious as what the Department of Justice documented in Ferguson, Missouri, and as deserving of a national response.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...tality-of-police-culture-in-baltimore/391158/

Of course, you are under no obligation to conduct any research on BPD. Does any of BPD's history have any relevancy, whatsoever, re the condcut of BPD on any given work day? I don't know...

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

I would call this situation a public service. A large version of a cop pulling over a white lady driving a Volvo at 3AM in the projects. "Are you lost? Just follow me, ma'am and I will take you to the freeway...". The officer had no right or reason to interfere with her travels. Did it because it was right, or saved him paperwork later, or she reminded him of his mother, whatever.
Police can restrict access in an emergency situation.

Lol illegally detained for driving white in a black neighborhood? That's a new one.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP Only half a division.

Oh. I was using a USMC division as my comparable. I guess it only takes half as many Marines as it does Army.

 

[Citizen]

I would call this situation a public service. A large version of a cop pulling over a white lady driving a Volvo at 3AM in the projects. "Are you lost? Just follow me, ma'am and I will take you to the freeway...". The officer had no right or reason to interfere with her travels. Did it because it was right, or saved him paperwork later, or she reminded him of his mother, whatever.

He also didn't have to seize her to see if she was lost, neither. He can blink his headlights, toot his horn, put on his hazard flashers to see if she will pull over. Or, pull ahead of her, and park with his travel lights on to see if she will stop and ask for directions. Or just follow her until she pulls into a convenience store, or pulls over on her own to use her phone for directions, etc.

Your example ranks right up there with a little PR-stunt I've come across in the media. Some city would get on a PR kick about welcoming tourists or business or whatever. So, once a week they direct the police to pull somebody over on the interstate going thru the city, and invite them stay the night or weekend in a nice hotel, meals included, compliments of the city government. Sounds great on the surface, until you realize there is no authority to seize someone on the road just so you can invite them to stay the night just so the city government can make itself look good.

Another of my "favorites" is a trend I literally ran into a few years ago--police roadblocks to question drivers whether they had seen anything related to a recent crime in the immediate area. So, let me get this straight. The cops seize a person involuntarily in a roadblock just so they can ask his voluntary cooperation to answer questions? Yep. That's right. Total absurdity. Worse, I came across a court case a few years later which approved this particular nonsense.

 

[hovercat]

We can all take our laws to either extreme. I am reminded of Jesus asking the lawgivers of his day if they would pull their donkey out of a ditch on the Sabbath.
I have no right to 'seize' your child, but I might momentarily do so if I saw them running out into traffic.
Police DO have the ability to restrict movement of the public, within reasonable limits. Everyday examples include blocking a road due to a fire or major traffic accident. They can even arrest you if they feel that your actions are a danger to yourself.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

Police DO have the ability to restrict movement of the public

Of course they do. Those with enough fire power can do anything.
IMO anytime these rights are violated there should be required absolute clear justification for it. We are far to the extreme where the authoritizes can just grin and say "safety" and they are free to temporarily suspend all rights.

 

[countryclubjoe]

Who created the words " Public Safety"? ..

 

[OC for ME]

Not what we're discussing.

We can all take our laws to either extreme. I am reminded of Jesus asking the lawgivers of his day if they would pull their donkey out of a ditch on the Sabbath.

I have no right to 'seize' your child, but I might momentarily do so if I saw them running out into traffic.

I would like to think so. But, let us not conflate analogies.

Police DO have the ability to restrict movement of the public, within reasonable limits. Everyday examples include blocking a road due to a fire or major traffic accident.

Restricting movements, as you have exampled here, is not analogous to the op.

They can even arrest you if they feel that your actions are a danger to yourself.

Please qualify your statements. Some states may not authorize a cop to arrest you unless there is a clear violation of the law. The community caretaking, a construct of the nanny state...pffft.

 

[skidmark]

.


Please qualify your statements. Some states may not authorize a cop to arrest you unless there is a clear violation of the law. The community caretaking, a construct of the nanny state...pffft.

But it is against the law to pose a threat to yourself (or to others). It's not a criminal offense, but every state, teritory, possession and federal district has a law against being a threat to yourself. Most are qualified with "clear and present".

As for who created the words "public safety"? It was the courts. Folks and the press used to talk about "public peace".

stay safe.

 

[since9]

Some states may not authorize a cop to arrest you unless there is a clear violation of the law.

That issue is Constitutional i.e. federal, not state, and has long since been clarified by the U.S. Supreme Court under a number of different rulings. The occasional cop who decides to take matters into his own hands barring valid reason usually finds themselves in the hot seat, if not fired.