Comments on: Refuse to tweet for the police http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/11/23/refuse-to-tweet-for-the-police/ Remember, I do this to entertain me... not you. Tue, 14 Feb 2012 02:36:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Ian Argent http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/11/23/refuse-to-tweet-for-the-police/comment-page-1/#comment-233403 Ian Argent Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:15:32 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=31326#comment-233403 http://volokh.com/2009/11/23/duty-to-tweet/ - Eugene Volohk on the subject. http://volokh.com/2009/11/23/duty-to-tweet/ – Eugene Volohk on the subject.

]]> By: EgregiousCharles http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/11/23/refuse-to-tweet-for-the-police/comment-page-1/#comment-233385 EgregiousCharles Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:30:11 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=31326#comment-233385 Oops, this actually happened in NY. My bad. Well, I hate them too. Oops, this actually happened in NY. My bad. Well, I hate them too.

]]> By: EgregiousCharles http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/11/23/refuse-to-tweet-for-the-police/comment-page-1/#comment-233384 EgregiousCharles Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:28:30 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=31326#comment-233384 I hate the dark and fascist state of New Jersey so freakin' much. I hate the dark and fascist state of New Jersey so freakin’ much.

]]> By: Ian Argent http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/11/23/refuse-to-tweet-for-the-police/comment-page-1/#comment-233381 Ian Argent Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:30:15 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=31326#comment-233381 "I do solemnly swear/affirm the following testimony is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". That's one (subject to the limitations of the 5th amendment). While I am firmly of the opinion that the subpoena is overused, I don't believe that it should never be used either. However, no judicial review, no grand jury, no nothing. This guy should get summarily released, and all costs borne by the cops, and the relevant lawyers sanctioned. “I do solemnly swear/affirm the following testimony is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”. That’s one (subject to the limitations of the 5th amendment).

While I am firmly of the opinion that the subpoena is overused, I don’t believe that it should never be used either.

However, no judicial review, no grand jury, no nothing. This guy should get summarily released, and all costs borne by the cops, and the relevant lawyers sanctioned.

]]> By: nk http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/11/23/refuse-to-tweet-for-the-police/comment-page-1/#comment-233374 nk Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:14:21 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=31326#comment-233374 I think maybe this is what did it: Some kids and their parents had camped out before dawn for the 4 p.m. event. <em>Bieber never made it into the building. "They are not allowing me to come into the mall," he said in a message sent to fans through Twitter, the social networking service. He wrote that police had threatened to arrest him if he didn't leave.</em> If you incite a riot maybe you have a duty to help quell it? I think maybe this is what did it:

Some kids and their parents had camped out before dawn for the 4 p.m. event.

Bieber never made it into the building.

“They are not allowing me to come into the mall,” he said in a message sent to fans through Twitter, the social networking service. He wrote that police had threatened to arrest him if he didn’t leave.

If you incite a riot maybe you have a duty to help quell it?

]]> By: straightarrow http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/11/23/refuse-to-tweet-for-the-police/comment-page-1/#comment-233363 straightarrow Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:12:42 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=31326#comment-233363 Aren't these the same sonsofbitches who say we cannot "take the law into their own hands"? Yet, the arrest this guy for not doing their job? C'mon. Aren’t these the same sonsofbitches who say we cannot “take the law into their own hands”? Yet, the arrest this guy for not doing their job? C’mon.

]]> By: B Woodman http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/11/23/refuse-to-tweet-for-the-police/comment-page-1/#comment-233355 B Woodman Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:43:22 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=31326#comment-233355 Ummm, and der polozi couldn't do this tweeting themselves? Over. And out. Ummm, and der polozi couldn’t do this tweeting themselves?

Over. And out.

]]> By: Wolfwood http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/11/23/refuse-to-tweet-for-the-police/comment-page-1/#comment-233354 Wolfwood Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:27:17 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=31326#comment-233354 Yes, the Nazis had some rule, the Communists had some rule...any other bugaboos we've missed? That said, if the defendant had already agreed (or if there's some specific sort of Good Samaritan law) to help as a condition for being able to use the place then I have no problem with him being prosecuted. Failure to act can certainly be a crime, even a felony, and that's just the way the law is. Yes, the Nazis had some rule, the Communists had some rule…any other bugaboos we’ve missed?

That said, if the defendant had already agreed (or if there’s some specific sort of Good Samaritan law) to help as a condition for being able to use the place then I have no problem with him being prosecuted. Failure to act can certainly be a crime, even a felony, and that’s just the way the law is.

]]> By: Flighterdoc http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/11/23/refuse-to-tweet-for-the-police/comment-page-1/#comment-233344 Flighterdoc Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:33:00 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=31326#comment-233344 The Church had a rule that made Galileo recant. The ancient Greeks had a rule that made Socrates drink the hemlock... If there is a contractual obligation, the city is free to seek recompense in civil court. The Church had a rule that made Galileo recant. The ancient Greeks had a rule that made Socrates drink the hemlock…

If there is a contractual obligation, the city is free to seek recompense in civil court.

]]> By: Wolfwood http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/11/23/refuse-to-tweet-for-the-police/comment-page-1/#comment-233343 Wolfwood Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:19:04 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=31326#comment-233343 <i>Ian, under what circumstances should a government be able to compel you to say anything?</i> Maybe if there's a pre-existing duty, especially if you contracted for it. I suspect that if the city had a rule that to use the venue you had to agree to comply with reasonable requests by the police for assistance it would be upheld by the courts. If that's the case here then they'll probably win at trial. They couldn't physically tie you down and make you tap the keys, but they could hold you legally responsible for not assisting. Ian, under what circumstances should a government be able to compel you to say anything?

Maybe if there’s a pre-existing duty, especially if you contracted for it. I suspect that if the city had a rule that to use the venue you had to agree to comply with reasonable requests by the police for assistance it would be upheld by the courts. If that’s the case here then they’ll probably win at trial.

They couldn’t physically tie you down and make you tap the keys, but they could hold you legally responsible for not assisting.

]]> By: Weer'd Beard http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/11/23/refuse-to-tweet-for-the-police/comment-page-1/#comment-233342 Weer'd Beard Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:11:50 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=31326#comment-233342 +1 +1

]]> By: Billy Beck http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/11/23/refuse-to-tweet-for-the-police/comment-page-1/#comment-233337 Billy Beck Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:21:56 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=31326#comment-233337 #3 -- None at all. Full stop. #3 — None at all. Full stop.

]]> By: Flighterdoc http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/11/23/refuse-to-tweet-for-the-police/comment-page-1/#comment-233335 Flighterdoc Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:03:52 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=31326#comment-233335 Ian, under what circumstances should a government be able to compel you to say anything? Ian, under what circumstances should a government be able to compel you to say anything?

]]> By: Ian Argent http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/11/23/refuse-to-tweet-for-the-police/comment-page-1/#comment-233334 Ian Argent Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:57:21 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=31326#comment-233334 Should be a slam-dunk 1A case; the .gov should not be able to compel speech w/o at least a subpoena. Won't be, of course Should be a slam-dunk 1A case; the .gov should not be able to compel speech w/o at least a subpoena.

Won’t be, of course

]]> By: Mikee http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/11/23/refuse-to-tweet-for-the-police/comment-page-1/#comment-233331 Mikee Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:41:46 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=31326#comment-233331 And by twittering, any misadventures suffered by those who either stayed or left would be upon his head, rather than upon the local authorities. He wisely (in a liability point of view) refrained from inserting himself (and accepting all the liability) into a situation that had evolved between those responsible for security at the event (the local authorities) and the participants who were endangered by their own rowdiness. Hey, either he was already negligent for not having adequate security at this event, or he wasn't, or the locals were already negligent for it, or they weren't. That is the sort of thing that civil trials for damages love to sort out in great detail with the perfect perspective of hindsight, long after the problem is over and done. He wasn't about to fall on a legal grenade at the request of the locals, just to spread even more liability upon himself, just because they asked. Maybe if they had given him a note saying they had requested he send out the message, and that THEY assumed all liability for his sending that message, he could have safely complied. And maybe he will lose at trial, if it comes to that, but only misdemeanors are involved, not potential millions in damages in a civil suit. And by twittering, any misadventures suffered by those who either stayed or left would be upon his head, rather than upon the local authorities. He wisely (in a liability point of view) refrained from inserting himself (and accepting all the liability) into a situation that had evolved between those responsible for security at the event (the local authorities) and the participants who were endangered by their own rowdiness.

Hey, either he was already negligent for not having adequate security at this event, or he wasn’t, or the locals were already negligent for it, or they weren’t. That is the sort of thing that civil trials for damages love to sort out in great detail with the perfect perspective of hindsight, long after the problem is over and done. He wasn’t about to fall on a legal grenade at the request of the locals, just to spread even more liability upon himself, just because they asked.

Maybe if they had given him a note saying they had requested he send out the message, and that THEY assumed all liability for his sending that message, he could have safely complied.

And maybe he will lose at trial, if it comes to that, but only misdemeanors are involved, not potential millions in damages in a civil suit.

]]>