But they aren't enforcing the law with many of these actions. See the first major publicized incident with the CNN crew. No laws were broken, the crew was compliant, they asked if they should move, explained they were in that spot because other police had told them to be there.

The police have gone beyond the law in these cases, and their handling of protesters (not to mention the cases which precipitated this present set of protests). The law doesn't need to be changed, the way police behave does.

You are incorrect. The law does need to be changed. There is a specific law called Qualified Immunity which prevents officers from being brought to trial for these acts.

Change or remove that law, and things will absolutely change as you see families taking officers to court for felony murder, assault and battery, and other felony charges.

Read my comment in context. The person I replied to implied that the police actions we're seeing this past week (in particular with their behavior towards the press) is itself legal, which it is not. That they have a way out for their illegal (or at least wrong) behavior is a separate, but related, issue. The thing I was discussing was that the law is already on the side of the press, the police are violating the law. Your comment is about the separate issue of why they are violating the law (the belief, validated repeatedly, that they are above the law itself). So yes, the law needs to change, but the police are not presently acting within the bounds of the law so the issue isn't just changing the law, but reforming the police forces.

Wait. Are you saying the law allows for police to physically attack peaceful bystanders? Am I reading you correctly?

A few days ago I had that exact discussion with someone here who didn't understand that there's a distinction between legal and illegal orders (wrt the military, in that context). That it is in fact illegal to obey an illegal order, and the right of members of the military to disobey such orders (assuming knowledge that it is illegal). The other person thought that I was advocating for anarchy...

Yes, you are. Please, refer to

> https://study.com/academy/lesson/unlawful-assembly-failure-t...

So the part of that which isn't paywalled simply says that doing something illegal, or doing something legal in a threatening manner, can be broken up by police.

Maybe it's in the full-text, but where does it say police can attack non-violent bystanders? Because I'm not seeing it in there.

I did not see behind paywall to, but here's a relevant quote:

> However, the second element is more difficult because it concerns gathering for lawful purposes and only becomes a violation when the gathering turns violent, boisterous, or tumultuous.

After it turns violent, police generally issues an order to disperse, and then proceeds to anti-riot measures. If you don't disperse after that lawful order, you are violating the law, which even most educated people don't seem to understand.

You have to have an account with that site to see the full text, otherwise it cuts off at about paragraph 4 or so.

But anyway, to respond to your statement -----

>but where does it say police can attack non-violent bystanders? Because I'm not seeing it in there.

> but where does it say police can attack non-violent bystanders?

That's the general point of police. They do not only attack violent people, but anyone, who violates the law. In this case it is the law of unlawful assembly.

Let's turn the discussion, as I think you have some predispositions there. How do you think police should prevent looting and damage to property on the street (like parked cars, shop windows, etc) during 95% peaceful protests, when the protestors form a crowd, and the peaceful folk refuse to disperse, because "they are just peaceful bystanders"?

P.S. Regarding the paywall. It seems to cut at your screen height, so the more vertical space you have, the more text is available.

Curfew orders have exceptions for credentialed press. The law is on the side of journalists.

I bet the reason for these journalists ending up in the line of attack is not violation of curfew, but a violation of a lawful order to disperse.

I am impressed so many people on HN do not seem to understand the concept and reasoning behind it.

The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America supersedes local ordnances, and journalists absolutely do no have to disperse when police issues such an order to the general public.

> journalists absolutely do no have to disperse when police issues such an order to the general public

The first amendment speaks nothing about who can be where. It just denies government the right to prosecute people for making statements.

> The first amendment speaks nothing about who can be where. It just denies government the right to prosecute people for making statements.

"just" free speech? Might want to check your pocket constitution again. The first amendment also protects the free press- and the freedom to assemble. (Not to mention religion and to petition for redress of grievances)

Admittedly, I have no pocket constitution, but brisk search only talks about peaceful assembly, which riots are not.

Besides, you completely ignore the "who can be where" point.

geez 3 weeks ago all those freedoms were widely thrown out the window yet now they are unassailable??

/done with HN for today

i find that very hard to believe. Crowds are ordered to disperse when things are getting dangerous or a curfew put in place by an elected official has passed. I don't see any plausible reason why dispersal wouldn't apply to the whole crowd and only a subset.

Ah, the Nuremberg defense, neat.

what laws are they breaking by doing their job