- AJC interview with Superintendent Edwards post-resignation [AJC]
- House approves cities of LaVista Hills and Tucker [AJC]
- Decatur crowd protests of DeKalb police shootings [AJC]
- Decatur train death will be ruled “accident” [Decaturish]
- Atlantic Station main retail core could soon be up for sale [AJC]
- Mayor Kasim Reed op-ed on $250m infrastructure bond [Reporter Newspapers]
- Kimball House’s Bryan Rackley advocate for Southern oysters [CL]
- Why some parklets work better than others [CityLab]
Photo courtesy of the City of Sacramento
Sticking with my prediction that Lavista Hills gets voter approval and Tucker doesn’t (unless Tucker adds police to the plan). And I guess Decatur’s annexation plans still haven’t been introduced.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but CoD (like most municipalities) requires permits and security, when appropriate, to hold events on public streets. So why were these protestors allowed to clog our streets for over an hour with impunity?
Indeed, it was truly horrible:
“The demonstration went off peacefully, although some motorists who were stopped for extended periods to let the protesters through blew their horns in frustration.”
Let’s hope the next time someone peacefully protests the police without a permit, the police will arrest them for it.
Protesting in the middle of Decatur streets is ok as long as it’s peaceful, and compassionate. Understood.
I was at the square when it started. There were police present while the crowd marched and there were police cars blocking certain intersections (Sycamore & Church). Are we sure there wasn’t a permit?
Short answer, yes, I am sure. This was a mob, plain and simple, and our police allowed it to take over our streets.
Long answer, according to the FB page, the event was announced 24 hours prior to the protest and 2 days after Anthony Hill was shot. CoD is efficient, but I can’t imagine they process any application that fast. And even if they do act so quickly, I would expect any application for such a permit to be denied. There are many more appropriate places for such a protest than major roads through downtown. And trapping motorists in their cars for extended periods of time has great potential to get very ugly very fast.
Aren’t we self-righteous! Civil disobedience with a permit isn’t civil disobedience. Until police are treated as if they are not above reproach, this will continue to happen. Sorry you were inconvenienced, but this incendiary analysis you are presenting is melodramatic. Deal with it.
I wasn’t inconvenienced as I was nowhere near downtown last night.
Then why are you so angry? Whose inconvenience matters more? Those who are tired of police overreaction or you, sitting from afar, angry at people who are “in your streets”? You don’t own Decatur.
I don’t think protesters have the right to unilaterally decide that their cause is more important than the time, attention, and resources of those they’re inconveniencing. Parks, courthouses, the front lawn of the sheriff all seem more appropriate places to protest than the middle of the street.
Unfortunately, someone unilaterally killed a human life that mattered to the protesters, a being that will never exist again. That’s way more than an inconvenience. There are consequences to unfortunate events. We may see a lot more consequences if we don’t focus on the tragedies vs. the inconveniences. There were churches that participated in that protest and I suspect that more will become involved. I hope that our police and other government agencies focus more on how to prevent this kind of tragedy than on the inconveniences because I’m pretty sure that history tells us that the latter approach will not work.
I’m sorry that drivers were inconvenienced. If I were trying to pick up my child because they were sick, I would have been very anxious and frustrated. I hope that demonstrators had the proper permits. I am glad that the protests were peaceable. At the same time, I understand why people who care would protest the shooting death of a military veteran who is being described as naked, unarmed, and perhaps mentally ill or having some other kind of crisis. If you watch the AJC video, it is clear that he had friends and family that knew him in better times and are now bereft. We don’t know the full story yet but compassion is in order.
Compassion for the victim and his loved ones does not in any way, shape or form equate compassion or tolerance for the protestors. Shouldn’t they be compassionate about the many, many lives they are intentionally disrupting? They can protest all they want, but they need to get off the damn streets.
Ugh. I appreciate people’s right to protest. Sometimes we need to inconvenienced a little bit so we take notice of what is going on. They can stay in the street.
+1. And of course they’re not protesting some trifling matter, but two recent incidents in which the police have killed apparently innocent men (and one dog).
Yes, this.
“but I can’t imagine they process any application that fast”
Actually, to the best of my understanding, the courts have ruled that permits are NOT required when the protest involves “breaking news”. Since the (latest) shooting by police occurred, as you noted, just two days ago, it’s likely the permit process would be considered too untimely to be required.
I will take your word for it on recent court rulings, but I am not sure I agree with your interpretation. Wouldn’t the protest need to be spontaneous? This event was planned.
I’d have to do some reading to refresh my memory, but I believe the key issue is not the degree of spontaneity, but the timeliness of the protest in relation to the event and the time it takes to apply for and receive a permit.
To add to my response, I’d argue that if it were truly spontaneous, it would be more likely be viewed as a “mob” rather than a legitimate protest.
So anytime breaking news occurs in Chamblee or Atlanta metro; the streets are available for protests. Interesting.
What is your proposal — arrest them all?
Move them out of the streets. If, and only if, they refuse to comply, then arrest them.
But what if you’re on the sidewalk and they inconvenience you there, too?
If they are intentionally blocking the sidewalks and refusing to allow anyone to pass, yes, same answer.
DawgFan, a sincere question: It seems inconsistent with your usual take to prioritize convenience over one of our most fundamental liberties. What am I not getting?
I don’t see this as simply a matter of inconvenience. This is one person (or a group) choosing to intentionally interfere with another. All involved have liberties, and some here (and the police) are prioritizing one group over another.
If I wanted to protest the response, or lack thereof, to the protest by Decatur police (and yes I understand it isn’t even close to the reason behind the Rise Up protests, so please don’t go there) and decided to lie at the crossroads intersection of Scott and Clairmont from 5 to7 tonight, would you be defending me and my liberties? Or would you demand I be removed and/or arrested? I would bet the latter.
“This is one person (or a group) choosing to intentionally interfere with another. All involved have liberties, and some here (and the police) are prioritizing one group over another.”
All this would be no less true if the protesters had obtained a permit — they still would have shut down a few streets for some time and interfered with the travel plans of at least a few people. So by issuing a permit, the city would have been, to some extent, making the same assessment of priorities the police did when they (wisely) decided to allow thew protest to proceed.
“All this would be no less true if the protesters had obtained a permit — they still would have shut down a few streets for some time and interfered with the travel plans of at least a few people.”
The upcoming St. Patrick’s Day parade will likely interfere with some people’s liberties, and for a trivial celebration that’s mostly an excuse to drink crap beer. I can say that because I’m Irish.
“and yes I understand it isn’t even close to the reason behind the Rise Up protests,”
But apparently you don’t understand, since you went ahead and made the comparison anyway.
My proposal is either it is acceptable to protest in city streets or it is not. If it is acceptable, then a precedent has been established that can be applied to future protests and those protesters will be afforded the same treatment as Rise Up protestors.
“So anytime breaking news occurs in Chamblee or Atlanta metro; the streets are available for protests. Interesting.”
Probably not just any “breaking news”. But protests of police shooting unarmed people would very likely be ruled as a legitimate protest. And attempts to make sure protests don’t inconvenience anyone could also be judged as diminishing the force of those protests and a violation of First Amendment rights.
Your definition of legitimate may differ greatly from another individual. Simple question; is a permit required to protest in the streets of Decatur? Sgt. Ross is a frequent contributor to DM, perhaps she can provide insight. Or Bryan Downs.
“Simple question; is a permit required to protest in the streets of Decatur? ”
It would be a simple question if we were talking about a parade instead of a protest. As I noted above, there are legal precedents for exceptions to permit requirements when breaking news is involved. Whether a protest is legitimate and in response to breaking news is indeed open to interpretation–ultimately a judge’s. The law, especially constitutional law, is not an algorithm. But since no arrests were made and nobody (as far as I know) was prevented from protesting, there won’t be any interpretations for a judge to make about this particular protest.
I would rather that the focus be on how to prevent this kind of death whether that focus be on the victim’s circumstances and actions or the police response. It seems to trivialize human life to be focused on the proper permitting of protests.
I get what your saying, AHID, but I somewhat disagree. The way protesters are treated is going to be a key element in improving relations between police and citizenry. So I think it’s important to talk about both things, even if it means getting a bit lost in the weeds and talking about permits and such. The fact is, the latest incident wouldn’t be getting much attention here if the protesters hadn’t inconvenienced some drivers. The point of protesting is to bring attention to an issue, even if some people are only annoyed as a result.
And I get what you are saying; it’s important to defend the right to protest peaceably. I just hope that folks remember that the real story here is about a human being whose existence is snuffed out forever, a human being who loved his Mom, Dad, and family, who made them proud when he joined the Air Force, who had friends that want to hear his voice again, who had a girlfriend that had never seen his behavior so crazy before, who probably was as confused and scared about what was happening to him mentally as the observers were. The fact that his friends, family, and supporters are protesting is completely understandable, permits or no permits. And the inconvenience to drivers and pedestrians is nothing next to the pain that the victim, his loved ones, and probably the officer involved, are experiencing.
I just don’t want to have this discussion again next week. If things aren’t learned, if things aren’t done differently next time, this lost life is all the more a waste.
thank you
Yes, let’s arrest the peaceful protesters or have the police move in on them to force them off of the street. Nothing bad would ever come of that.
Sure, Peaceful protesters should control the streets. Nothing bad would ever come of that.
We can speculate about what might happen (me, I say worse would have come from a police confrontation), but all that did happen was some people were inconvenienced.
So what is level of inconvenience before police intervention?
First we must form a blue ribbon panel of impatient old coots. Then it will be up to them to calculate the inconvenience threshold.
The Dead Kennedy’s were right. Give us convenience or give us death!
“So what is level of inconvenience before police intervention?”
I’d say it probably would be more a matter of public safety than inconvenience, and that would be true whether there’s a permit or not. For example, the Freeway Overpass protesters aren’t inconveniencing anyone, but an argument could be made by someone that they pose a public safety risk because their signs are distracting to fast-moving drivers. But I seriously doubt a judge would agree without some evidence. If it’s only a matter of inconvenience, I’d say the level would have to be pretty high. As I jokingly mentioned above, they allow major streets to be blocked for hours for trivial parades, so use that as a starting point for comparison.
Ironically, eighth graders at Renfroe are currently studying the civil rights movement in humanities and language arts. Maybe reading this thread and the legal and moral issues raised should be one of their activities.
Or any class studying the Constitution:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Great discussion. There is certainly a balance of challenging the status quo/civil disobedience, and harming the person or property of another/causing a disturbance, etc. Like AHID, I am not going to get into were this protest lies, as I am much more concerned about this officer (our government) using deadly force when it may not have been warranted, and what we can do to keep it from happening again.
Should we also allow protesters to walk on the downtown connector whenever they choose? That was downright dangerous, for both the protesters and the motorists. I was shocked to see that those folks weren’t arrested. And it was at night! Lots of people could have been needlessly harmed, which ironically is what the protest was about to begin with.
Since pedestrians are not allowed on the connector, that seems to be a different issue.