Several videos posted on social media showed a chaotic scene as law enforment officers in helmets and reflective jackets scuffled with shouting protesters, some carrying umbrellas. Many of the protesters appeared to link arms forming a barrier as officers moved in.
Last year, the mayor deemed it illegal to set up tarps and tents on public property in Boston, specifically to leverage against the growing population of unhoused people. I’m guessing that was cited.
Viana said he didn’t know what charges the demonstrators faced but that some will likely be charged with disturbing the peace and others with trespassing.
They also were apparently reading some city anti camping ordinance to the protestors.
Because when it comes to dealing with those opposing the US MIC, we’re already a fascist country. You have the freedom to do many things but this is not one of them. MLK killed after speaking out on Vietnam, Kennedy killed for much the same reasons; Vietnam and mulling changes at the CIA, Boeing whistleblower mysteriously ‘comitting suicide’ your freedom only extends to things that do not oppose the military.
Same with Malcolm X, and Fred Hampton. As soon as any of these men started talking about class unity, the people in charge immediately acted to get rid of them. Really shows how scary class consciousness is to the ruling class.
This source suggests something about a judge not being present for an arraignment, and so they were released with instructions to present again in May. Sounds like they probably haven’t been formally charged with anything. You can be arrested without being charged, usually charges come shortly after an arrest. But they can’t hold you indefinitely with no charge, which is why they were just released with instructions to return on a certain date.
Could you please cite in the article what the list of charges were? I see: “Viana said he didn’t know what charges the demonstrators faced but that some will likely be charged with disturbing the peace and others with trespassing”. Viana, in this context, being the lawyer representing the students arrested from the National Lawyers Guild. Additionally, there was mention of some city ordinances being violated, but no specifics.
I think we are misunderstanding each other. Are you are confusing city ordinances with legal charges? And, if so, they don’t even call out the city ordinances that were all cited, just that there are ordinances about unlawful camping.
The article doesn’t mention how many, which ones, and what charges can be levied against someone who violated those ordinances.
I’m not confused. The article is pretty clear: they haven’t been charged yet (as of the article’s writing), and the lawyer was speculating on what they might be charged with. You even quoted the relevant part.
I regret engaging with this believing you were trying to be constructive. This is now a closed loop in which, within 3 messages, you claim to know what the charges are, and then you admit the charges are still in speculation. Have a nice day.
The answer to your question was in the article, and you even quoted it yourself. If anyone engaged here in bad faith, it was you. You even proved it By quoting the answer when you asked the question.
If you stick your hand in a blender and it gets mutilated, you don’t blame the blender you blame yourself for sticking your hand in a blender.
If you believed something different was going to happen, that is 100% on you.
Arresting for what? Does anyone know what the charges were?
Last year, the mayor deemed it illegal to set up tarps and tents on public property in Boston, specifically to leverage against the growing population of unhoused people. I’m guessing that was cited.
https://www.boston.gov/departments/mayors-office/unlawful-camping-ordinance
It’s a private college. I’m pretty sure they could just be charged with criminal trespassing if they were asked to leave and refused.
The article said they were on a public walkway. That also may be illegal to obstruct.
Need to check and see if it’s a public access easement.
Ah, got it, thanks
From the article:
They also were apparently reading some city anti camping ordinance to the protestors.
Why does the lawyer not know what the charges are? How were they arrested without being charged?
Because when it comes to dealing with those opposing the US MIC, we’re already a fascist country. You have the freedom to do many things but this is not one of them. MLK killed after speaking out on Vietnam, Kennedy killed for much the same reasons; Vietnam and mulling changes at the CIA, Boeing whistleblower mysteriously ‘comitting suicide’ your freedom only extends to things that do not oppose the military.
MLK wasn’t killed because he spoke out against Vietnam.
He was killed because he was abandoning a racial paradigm in favor of a class one. He was building a rainbow coalition.
Same with Malcolm X, and Fred Hampton. As soon as any of these men started talking about class unity, the people in charge immediately acted to get rid of them. Really shows how scary class consciousness is to the ruling class.
I get that, but I don’t know why this is even going before a judge if they were arrested without charge. I didn’t think that was legal.
deleted by creator
This source suggests something about a judge not being present for an arraignment, and so they were released with instructions to present again in May. Sounds like they probably haven’t been formally charged with anything. You can be arrested without being charged, usually charges come shortly after an arrest. But they can’t hold you indefinitely with no charge, which is why they were just released with instructions to return on a certain date.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/emerson-college-protest-arrests-divides-along-public-safety-vs-political-lines/ar-AA1nGB5t
Okay, I didn’t realize that. I thought they had to charge you with something if they arrested you. Thanks.
You can be arrested just because the cop felt like it. They typically have some time span in which to charge you or they have to let you go.
Cops aren’t the ones charging you, that’s the DA.
Right, I was wondering if any more clarified information had come out.
Another commenter let me know that Boston basically made suburban camping illegal last year in Boston.
I do, because I read the article.
Could you please cite in the article what the list of charges were? I see: “Viana said he didn’t know what charges the demonstrators faced but that some will likely be charged with disturbing the peace and others with trespassing”. Viana, in this context, being the lawyer representing the students arrested from the National Lawyers Guild. Additionally, there was mention of some city ordinances being violated, but no specifics.
Looks like you answered your own question
I think we are misunderstanding each other. Are you are confusing city ordinances with legal charges? And, if so, they don’t even call out the city ordinances that were all cited, just that there are ordinances about unlawful camping.
The article doesn’t mention how many, which ones, and what charges can be levied against someone who violated those ordinances.
I’m not confused. The article is pretty clear: they haven’t been charged yet (as of the article’s writing), and the lawyer was speculating on what they might be charged with. You even quoted the relevant part.
I regret engaging with this believing you were trying to be constructive. This is now a closed loop in which, within 3 messages, you claim to know what the charges are, and then you admit the charges are still in speculation. Have a nice day.
The answer to your question was in the article, and you even quoted it yourself. If anyone engaged here in bad faith, it was you. You even proved it By quoting the answer when you asked the question.
If you stick your hand in a blender and it gets mutilated, you don’t blame the blender you blame yourself for sticking your hand in a blender.
If you believed something different was going to happen, that is 100% on you.
This must be exhausting.