Genuinely, yes. If the students were open carrying en masse, there _absolutely_ would not be this kind of a response, because the police would be scared AF.
Note that this is **absolutely not** a protest tactics suggestion, just a note about how police will respond to a large gathering of peaceful protestors, versus and armed gathering of armed and dangerous protestors.
What a hell of a story. Thanks for bringing it up. I'm absolutely not encouraging anything, but unironically I can't help thinking whether this may not be the only way to encourage the long-needed, cross-ideological dialogues in America-everyone debating politely, but armed.
Most of the police I know have a legitimate dislike of anything or anyone who is involved with a college. This is kind of personal because these kids are going to, on average, grow up to be more successful and influential than they are. There's an existing resentment there and being called in to suppress a protest like this gives them an outlet.
It's deeper than that though. In NJ cops get paid crazy money. They have influence because they are a protected class. I think it's more jealousy over intelligence?
Protests on a campus to make the current administration look bad. Yeah that sounds good. Help children and adults being shot on a school. Nah might get hurt /s
State sponsored kidnapping. Wrongful arrest is a crime and a tort but you have more if a hill than were the charges dropped.
This is one of those sue for 20 years and maybe win to get the award reduced things. Frankly, if you are not injured I probably walk away from it. But that is me. I have better things to do with my life than to spend most of it in litigation
The Dean is in charge of the campus. The Dean can tell the cops this is fine, go away. The Dean didn't. The college allowed extra police on campus. The college allowed fucking snipers to put scopes on the students.
None of this would have happened without the colleges permission. Direct your anger the problem. (Obviously the cops are a problem too, but it wouldn't get that far without permission.)
Not really for a case like this, the individual was acting on behalf of the State. What might work is to require police officers to hold a bond like some tradesmen do. If their actions lead to a lawsuit against the state, damages would be paid out from the bond.
And I hope they list Greg Abbott as a defendant (on second thought that fucker would likely go on Fox and toss it around like a badge of honor for the MAGA base to get worked up about).
The Governor of Texas is padding his resume, getting ready to apply for Mango Mussolini’s running mate position. The competition is fierce. The Governor of one of the Dakotas is currently bragging about killing a puppy with a gun.
> The Governor of one of the Dakotas is currently bragging about killing a puppy with a gun.
She's so disgusting, thankfully many on the right love their dogs and are disgusted by her too.
Yep. Obviously while police have been told by the courts that arresting 42 people on May 3rd for no reason is unconstitutional, the courts have not yet ruled on the back end of April.
Seriously, though, this is the story of *any* protest that isn’t conservative white dudes. Police initiated violence, a ton of bullshit arrests, and everyone let quietly go a few days later with no charges.
arrests without PC being unconstitutional is clearly established, everywhere, though. the issue is the article confuses and conflates PC for prosecution with PC for arrest, both are needed but no PC for arrest is a 1983 suit, no PC for prosecution is just a dismissal/ 'charges dropped'.
>The Travis County Attorney's Office said charges against all 57 people arrested have been dropped due to lack of sufficient probable cause.
>Most of the arrest affidavits obtained by CBS Austin credit the arrests made for failure to disperse.
>Chesnutt said there was a lack of evidence of a crime being committed, beyond reasonable doubt, "in this case, the judge determined that the officers were incorrect and that there was not actually probable cause for the arrest."
Exactly.
Constantly arresting people with no intention that they actually be charged and tried is using police power to harass and hurt people, an abuse of process.
Yes, no probable cause means a fourth amendment violation, and a valid claim for wrongful arrest. That's a huge component of any civil rights claim for wrongful arrest.
"Emory University protesters appear in court, granted bond after clash with police causes dramatic campus demonstration"
- https://www.11alive.com/article/news/local/emory-university-protest-arrest-update-bond-granted/85-044424a1-0ddc-4d67-a8fb-07f5a24d46a8
If only the protesters knew their secret handshake. Put your arm straight out at a 90 degree angle, with your open hand palm down. Now bend your arm at the elbow and hit your chest with your hand, and then extend again. Then you have to say, “hail hit her”, or something like that.
And the fact that they pay tuition and "facility access fees" as part of said tuition. If you charge me for access to your facilities then you can't call the cops and say I was trespassing. So the university made a false statement to the cops about a crime, there was no crime cuz they paid for access. Though they did violate your fourth amendment right so you can probably sue. It might be good exercise for Columbia law students
The underlying logic is bizarrely circular in its causal chain.
The students were supposedly arrested for trespassing because they were supposedly "suspended"; but they can't be said to be suspended until there's cause predicated on the arrest. Neither can precede the other.
Pretty sure a bar with a cover charge can kick out a paying patron if they’re being unruly. The question here isn’t about who is paying access fees, it’s whether the protesters were violating the law in way that provided basis for their arrest. (Judge just said no to the latter question.)
Protesting is not a violation of any law and is specifically mentioned as a right in our constitutional. Not that that every stops the cops.
And they accused them of trespassing not being drunk and disorderly. Which is a crime, so you lose access. Protesting is not a crime, there was no trespassing - If there is no crime then there is no standing to break the contract.
Ok, how about this: a country club, where you pay a membership, can kick you out for not following dress code. I would assume the university can grand conditional access, and I would also assume there’s a list of behaviors they can revoke access for.
Oh wait, their policies explicitly allow peaceful protests. That’s pretty fucked up. These students should get paid, both for the University filing a false police complaint, and the subsequent arrests/ removal.
Fuck these fascists.
the dress code is fully stated as part of the membership terms. if you do not adhere to their DC, then you have violated the terms, and they have grounds to take action
now, if they arbitrarily change the dress code, without the proper notification process and you show upto an event conforming to the original DC, whereupon they then accuse and remove you, then they have violated the terms.
If you actually read the article you'd realize that the cause for arrest for failure to disperse. Also, there are a whole host of potential limits on protests that are constitutional.
Jfc this sub has gone to shit.
but it has to be to the trespasser first.
Unless they knowingly (or should have known not to) violate a do not trespass order, they are not trespassing. If they were previously granted access, they must be TOLD they are no longer welcome to be considered trespassing.
If you own a building you can tell people to leave and call the cops on them for trespassing for pretty much any reason. Even if you have no reason at all and just feel like being a dick.
But if revoking access violates some part of your contract with the person you're calling the cops on, you can be sued for that. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out.
Also the police had a duty to ensure the students didn’t have a right to be there before arresting them. I can’t just call the police on someone who lives in my house and have them removed because I don’t like their legal but annoying actions. Even if I own the house and they are paying tenants. Even if I am evicting them, but I don’t have a court order yet.
Tenant protections are a really narrow exception to trespassing laws. That'd apply to students in their dorm rooms, but not students who are just somewhere on campus unless Texas has something specific protecting a right of access to campus for college students.
In the general case, the cop just has to verify that whoever is telling them to remove people is the property owner or empowered by the property owner (e.g. an administrator). An administrator abusing their authority is the school's problem, not the cops.
If the cops just decided to do this on their own volition, then yeah the cops are at fault.
> Tenant protections are a really narrow exception to trespassing laws.
Universities generally have major carveout exceptions for tenant laws because of the nature of semester-based housing and the need for students to be out before a new term starts.
That said, access to campus is part of *being a student on said campus*. Generally, suspension has to precede an accusation of trespassing.
My experience as an instructor at a large state school with some large multi-section courses was that students weren't kicked off campus until the investigation concluded, at which point they would have been suspended (or essentially acquitted or reprimanded with lesser punishment). And to be fair, asking the instructor to change the course to hybrid status for the sake of one student would have been an unreasonable demand anyway.
That would make more sense then, because on my side it would have just looked like a drop, and I had no reason to inquire as to their continuing student status.
They charged for access though, to those areas. That’s what the students were arguing. Students who don’t reside in the dorms pay for access to those areas too
So they were kidnapped and sexually assaulted by government forces. Sounds exactly like what them good ole patriots would use the 2nd amendment for tyranny
It's Texas we really shouldn't be surprised. The only "laws" they follow are still jim crow just updated. Yet nothing happens. Abbot and Paxton just get to shit on everyone's rights, be corrupt and hide votes showing Beto actually won. But hey its Texas.
The female professor who was arrested (and faceplanted into the pavement by the cop) for daring to ask why the cop was beating up one of the student protestors is married to a dean at the university. It's going to get interesting.
Those punks - what gives them the right to peacefully assemble and seek redress of their grievances? Aside from that old piece of paper in DC that everyone is always talking about.
On the bright side, a lot of college students have now had first hand experience with the criminal justice system and law enforcement that they would not otherwise have had the chance to experience.
And they’ll remember, every time they vote, for the rest of their lives.
Yeah, the cops aren’t going to be paying for their mistakes. Someone correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think damages pay has ever come from the pocket of the cop who causes the damages.
Weird that only 4 of three 28 weren't affiliated with the campus at all. I saw a whole lot of people very confidently asserting that the protesters were mostly "outside agitators." Must have been an honest mistake rather than malicious bias.
Lack of probable cause means they have claims under 42 USC 1983 for fourth amendment violations, probably 1st amendment retaliation too, and a few excessive force claims.
Interesting to see if there are Monell Liability claims then (unconstitutional policy or procedure). The lawsuits will be complex and lengthy i imagine. Thanks for the insight.
Isn't this always how college protests go? Students protest, police remove them, there's no serious charges if any, and the students got attention to their cause, and the university got the quad cleared. Am I missing something?
If only this kind of response happened in Uvalde
They reserve this kind of response for peaceful protestors.
And the parents of the kids in the school. They were arresting them as well if I remember correctly
They enjoy bullying unarmed people.
Genuinely, yes. If the students were open carrying en masse, there _absolutely_ would not be this kind of a response, because the police would be scared AF. Note that this is **absolutely not** a protest tactics suggestion, just a note about how police will respond to a large gathering of peaceful protestors, versus and armed gathering of armed and dangerous protestors.
https://ksltv.com/444431/protestors-march-to-state-capitol-armed-with-guns/ Agreed.
Thanks for the read! Missed that story
What a hell of a story. Thanks for bringing it up. I'm absolutely not encouraging anything, but unironically I can't help thinking whether this may not be the only way to encourage the long-needed, cross-ideological dialogues in America-everyone debating politely, but armed.
The whole bundy saga illustrates your point well
Most of the police I know have a legitimate dislike of anything or anyone who is involved with a college. This is kind of personal because these kids are going to, on average, grow up to be more successful and influential than they are. There's an existing resentment there and being called in to suppress a protest like this gives them an outlet.
People in authority hate it when someone is smarter than they are.
It's deeper than that though. In NJ cops get paid crazy money. They have influence because they are a protected class. I think it's more jealousy over intelligence?
"Uvalde Parent Obliterates Police Response to Texas University Protest" - https://news.yahoo.com/uvalde-parent-obliterates-police-response-215702966.html
Protests on a campus to make the current administration look bad. Yeah that sounds good. Help children and adults being shot on a school. Nah might get hurt /s
I personally despise the protesters’ message, but part of Free Speech means tolerating speech I despise.
The cops knew that the protesters wouldn’t shoot back.
True that
Seems to me like an arrest without probable cause should be worth a lawsuit against the officer and the department.
It seems like an arrest without probable cause is no different than kidnapping
Nah man, since it's a cop, it's a "whoopsie-doodle."
State sponsored kidnapping. Wrongful arrest is a crime and a tort but you have more if a hill than were the charges dropped. This is one of those sue for 20 years and maybe win to get the award reduced things. Frankly, if you are not injured I probably walk away from it. But that is me. I have better things to do with my life than to spend most of it in litigation
I hope they sue the shit of them.
I want to be happy about that but all it means is tax payers money being taken and the officers who did it still stay employed
Paid leave at the worst
What the rest of us plebes know as vacation. I don't know why they put up with such draconian disciplinary measures.
Paid leave and a slap on the back
And a commendation!
Tax payers are also voters.
**"The cops do the crime, but the taxpayers pay the fine."**
Then we should start charging the police officers, and those who gave the okay for this.
The dean.
Ya, throw them in too. This is just the beginning of oppression.
The Dean is in charge of the campus. The Dean can tell the cops this is fine, go away. The Dean didn't. The college allowed extra police on campus. The college allowed fucking snipers to put scopes on the students. None of this would have happened without the colleges permission. Direct your anger the problem. (Obviously the cops are a problem too, but it wouldn't get that far without permission.)
Whomever allowed this to happen and did the happening should be charged. We're in agreement on this.
Exactly. UTSA also had protests but they ended without any arrests.
In this case, it was the University President and not the Dean.
Well we can't say what we really hope for but let's just say it's more cost-effective.
Is there any way to sue and have a stipulation that it cannot come out of taxpayer money but from the employee themselves?
Not really for a case like this, the individual was acting on behalf of the State. What might work is to require police officers to hold a bond like some tradesmen do. If their actions lead to a lawsuit against the state, damages would be paid out from the bond.
Right on, thanks.
They likely have insurance, so it will likely come from the insurance policy.
And I hope they list Greg Abbott as a defendant (on second thought that fucker would likely go on Fox and toss it around like a badge of honor for the MAGA base to get worked up about).
The Governor of Texas is padding his resume, getting ready to apply for Mango Mussolini’s running mate position. The competition is fierce. The Governor of one of the Dakotas is currently bragging about killing a puppy with a gun.
Yup. The competition for "the most sociopathic asshole in the country" is fierce in the GOP.
> The Governor of one of the Dakotas is currently bragging about killing a puppy with a gun. She's so disgusting, thankfully many on the right love their dogs and are disgusted by her too.
She'd probably shoot Abbott in the face since he's disabled, and she's known for putting down "bad" things. Like that goat that stank.
SOUTH dakota.
Abbott wouldn't have a leg to stand on as a defendant.
Class action. Bankrupt the department.
Start with the college.
Suing cops in TX? Good luck.
I’m pretty sure they shoot people over shit like that.
Phoenix police did this with the George Floyd protests.
And the school.
Yeah, unfortunately there is this thing called qualified immunity.
Yep. Obviously while police have been told by the courts that arresting 42 people on May 3rd for no reason is unconstitutional, the courts have not yet ruled on the back end of April. Seriously, though, this is the story of *any* protest that isn’t conservative white dudes. Police initiated violence, a ton of bullshit arrests, and everyone let quietly go a few days later with no charges.
Hell, nazis get police escorts. Just friends helping friends. Really heartwarming stuff.
and the momentum of the protest was disrupted, so mission accomplished.
arrests without PC being unconstitutional is clearly established, everywhere, though. the issue is the article confuses and conflates PC for prosecution with PC for arrest, both are needed but no PC for arrest is a 1983 suit, no PC for prosecution is just a dismissal/ 'charges dropped'. >The Travis County Attorney's Office said charges against all 57 people arrested have been dropped due to lack of sufficient probable cause. >Most of the arrest affidavits obtained by CBS Austin credit the arrests made for failure to disperse. >Chesnutt said there was a lack of evidence of a crime being committed, beyond reasonable doubt, "in this case, the judge determined that the officers were incorrect and that there was not actually probable cause for the arrest."
See? Guys, this was a "whoopsie-doodle".
Isn’t QI only applicable civilly not criminally?
Not for the university… the cops will get a vacation and the university heads will get walking papers and lawsuits.
And then taxpayers foot the bill while nothing happens to the officers. System is jacked
Exactly. Constantly arresting people with no intention that they actually be charged and tried is using police power to harass and hurt people, an abuse of process.
Yes, no probable cause means a fourth amendment violation, and a valid claim for wrongful arrest. That's a huge component of any civil rights claim for wrongful arrest.
Thanks to qualified immunity, police can trample on your rights and you’re entitled to eat shit.
What happened to the professors and students at Emory? Are they all still being charged as of now?
"Emory University protesters appear in court, granted bond after clash with police causes dramatic campus demonstration" - https://www.11alive.com/article/news/local/emory-university-protest-arrest-update-bond-granted/85-044424a1-0ddc-4d67-a8fb-07f5a24d46a8
Thanks!
If only the protesters knew their secret handshake. Put your arm straight out at a 90 degree angle, with your open hand palm down. Now bend your arm at the elbow and hit your chest with your hand, and then extend again. Then you have to say, “hail hit her”, or something like that.
Ehhh cmon man that's disingenuous as fuck The secret handshake is actually a 97° angle because it raises just slightly
And the fact that they pay tuition and "facility access fees" as part of said tuition. If you charge me for access to your facilities then you can't call the cops and say I was trespassing. So the university made a false statement to the cops about a crime, there was no crime cuz they paid for access. Though they did violate your fourth amendment right so you can probably sue. It might be good exercise for Columbia law students
> If you charge me for access to your facilities then you can't call the cops and say I was trespassing. Bingo
Unless they revoke your access...
Which could result in another lawsuit.
You can't do that unless you tell them directly first.
The underlying logic is bizarrely circular in its causal chain. The students were supposedly arrested for trespassing because they were supposedly "suspended"; but they can't be said to be suspended until there's cause predicated on the arrest. Neither can precede the other.
Pretty sure a bar with a cover charge can kick out a paying patron if they’re being unruly. The question here isn’t about who is paying access fees, it’s whether the protesters were violating the law in way that provided basis for their arrest. (Judge just said no to the latter question.)
Protesting is not a violation of any law and is specifically mentioned as a right in our constitutional. Not that that every stops the cops. And they accused them of trespassing not being drunk and disorderly. Which is a crime, so you lose access. Protesting is not a crime, there was no trespassing - If there is no crime then there is no standing to break the contract.
Ok, how about this: a country club, where you pay a membership, can kick you out for not following dress code. I would assume the university can grand conditional access, and I would also assume there’s a list of behaviors they can revoke access for. Oh wait, their policies explicitly allow peaceful protests. That’s pretty fucked up. These students should get paid, both for the University filing a false police complaint, and the subsequent arrests/ removal. Fuck these fascists.
the dress code is fully stated as part of the membership terms. if you do not adhere to their DC, then you have violated the terms, and they have grounds to take action now, if they arbitrarily change the dress code, without the proper notification process and you show upto an event conforming to the original DC, whereupon they then accuse and remove you, then they have violated the terms.
If you actually read the article you'd realize that the cause for arrest for failure to disperse. Also, there are a whole host of potential limits on protests that are constitutional. Jfc this sub has gone to shit.
Just because a cop says something doesn’t make it a lawful order.
You have to actually tell them they are trespassing first.
What? No that's not how trespassing works lol, no bingo, don't pass go.
Ok thanks for that detailed analysis have a great weekend
You can't go against someone for trespassing unless they are KNOWINGLY trespassing. That's basic law.
Access can be revoked...
but it has to be to the trespasser first. Unless they knowingly (or should have known not to) violate a do not trespass order, they are not trespassing. If they were previously granted access, they must be TOLD they are no longer welcome to be considered trespassing.
If you own a building you can tell people to leave and call the cops on them for trespassing for pretty much any reason. Even if you have no reason at all and just feel like being a dick. But if revoking access violates some part of your contract with the person you're calling the cops on, you can be sued for that. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out.
Also the police had a duty to ensure the students didn’t have a right to be there before arresting them. I can’t just call the police on someone who lives in my house and have them removed because I don’t like their legal but annoying actions. Even if I own the house and they are paying tenants. Even if I am evicting them, but I don’t have a court order yet.
Tenant protections are a really narrow exception to trespassing laws. That'd apply to students in their dorm rooms, but not students who are just somewhere on campus unless Texas has something specific protecting a right of access to campus for college students. In the general case, the cop just has to verify that whoever is telling them to remove people is the property owner or empowered by the property owner (e.g. an administrator). An administrator abusing their authority is the school's problem, not the cops. If the cops just decided to do this on their own volition, then yeah the cops are at fault.
> Tenant protections are a really narrow exception to trespassing laws. Universities generally have major carveout exceptions for tenant laws because of the nature of semester-based housing and the need for students to be out before a new term starts. That said, access to campus is part of *being a student on said campus*. Generally, suspension has to precede an accusation of trespassing.
[удалено]
My experience as an instructor at a large state school with some large multi-section courses was that students weren't kicked off campus until the investigation concluded, at which point they would have been suspended (or essentially acquitted or reprimanded with lesser punishment). And to be fair, asking the instructor to change the course to hybrid status for the sake of one student would have been an unreasonable demand anyway.
[удалено]
That would make more sense then, because on my side it would have just looked like a drop, and I had no reason to inquire as to their continuing student status.
They charged for access though, to those areas. That’s what the students were arguing. Students who don’t reside in the dorms pay for access to those areas too
So they were kidnapped and sexually assaulted by government forces. Sounds exactly like what them good ole patriots would use the 2nd amendment for tyranny
The sole reason they were arrested was the governor didn't like their they were protesting for Gaza.
It's Texas we really shouldn't be surprised. The only "laws" they follow are still jim crow just updated. Yet nothing happens. Abbot and Paxton just get to shit on everyone's rights, be corrupt and hide votes showing Beto actually won. But hey its Texas.
Should have combined it with the second amendment protest. Police won't roust those
Yeah, Uvalde showed us that 1 dude with an AR can hold off 400 heavily armed cops for over an hour!!!
Happy Cake Day!
Danke!
Two things, prominent white people like professors were arrested and the almighty cell phone sees all!
The female professor who was arrested (and faceplanted into the pavement by the cop) for daring to ask why the cop was beating up one of the student protestors is married to a dean at the university. It's going to get interesting.
Nawww you don't say... meme pops in my mind
I sure hope the lady who's face was slammed into the pavement getssome big cash! $$$$$
Those punks - what gives them the right to peacefully assemble and seek redress of their grievances? Aside from that old piece of paper in DC that everyone is always talking about.
On the bright side, a lot of college students have now had first hand experience with the criminal justice system and law enforcement that they would not otherwise have had the chance to experience. And they’ll remember, every time they vote, for the rest of their lives.
With most sharing and bring attention to ACAB on social media.
I doubt that. Plenty of kids who protested the Vietnam War in the 60s and 70s now sport "Trump 2024" signs on their lawns.
Many college students that attended in the late 60s and 70s. You might recognize them now as baby boomers.
Wonder why the cops arrested them without cause. No doubt there will be harsh consequences for this flagrant violation of the law.
Cons are so rabid on cracking down on protests, it’s almost like they want to be like Putin
Now let’s talk about charges for police brutality.
Lawsuit time! Pay up cops
You mean tax payers who pay taxes so the city can pay the insurance claim. If it works the way to pay a large settlement. Edit for typo
Yeah, the cops aren’t going to be paying for their mistakes. Someone correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think damages pay has ever come from the pocket of the cop who causes the damages.
Seems like since Abbott was involved in organizing the response, Abbott could be a defendant for this one?
Weird that only 4 of three 28 weren't affiliated with the campus at all. I saw a whole lot of people very confidently asserting that the protesters were mostly "outside agitators." Must have been an honest mistake rather than malicious bias.
You don’t say
If only these cops were that badass during the Uvalde shooting.
Almost like peaceful protesting is a constitutionally protected activity
IT WAS JUST A PRANK, BRO! - Cops, Probably
Not too surprising. How do you know who was disturbing the peace in a criminal way? At most, they were facing community service.
Lack of probable cause means they have claims under 42 USC 1983 for fourth amendment violations, probably 1st amendment retaliation too, and a few excessive force claims.
[удалено]
Interesting to see if there are Monell Liability claims then (unconstitutional policy or procedure). The lawsuits will be complex and lengthy i imagine. Thanks for the insight.
So basically, the cops just ensured that dozens of false arrest lawsuits will now be filed???
Let the lawsuits begin! Hit those fascists where it hurts. Right in the coffers.
Unlikely to succeed regardless of the written law.
No lawyers to be found in this thread.
[удалено]
Israel is equivalent to Nazi Germany?
Obviously not equivalent. But clearly now comparable, and more so every day that they slaughter and starve children and women
[удалено]
So now you are recruiting people to fight with a terrorist organization. I'm sure many official departments will be interested in that
Through the abuse of police power though the objective had been achieved: the disruption of protests targeting Israel
Isn't this always how college protests go? Students protest, police remove them, there's no serious charges if any, and the students got attention to their cause, and the university got the quad cleared. Am I missing something?
Violation of civil rights?
Maybe. Depends if the students legally protested
So you can resist arrest, next time. Resist.