Man Accused of Tweeting Cop Actions at Protests

Source: Current TV

NEW YORK — A self-described New York City anarchist has been accused of tweeting the location of police officers to protesters trying to evade them during the Group of 20 economic summit in Pittsburgh.

Pennsylvania State Police arrested Elliot Madison alleging he used Twitter to direct the movement of protesters and inform them about law enforcement actions at last month's summit.


Read more: http://current.com/items/91095377_man-accused-of-tweeting-cop-actions-at-protests.htm

---

When did this become against the law??? No one who tweeted during the GOP convention in Min. got arrested!

On the one hand the protesters have a right to do what they do, but what about the safety of the officers? Also the anarchists at these protests in Pittsburgh were destroying property and assaulting people.

by smashing the windows at the local Quizno's.


Um...

Quiznos, not Quizno's.

the Baron? Tell us about Catherine the Great.

The whole agent provocateur thing sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. The event in Canada was real, but besides that I have seen zero evidence supporting the idea that some anarchists are undercover.

Police and federal agents went as far as planting bombs which killed people to discredit anarchists and other leftists. Is it happening here? I don't know - I do know that there are undercover cops trying (not really succeeding) to infiltrate, or at least play dress-up to stir things up and cause trouble. I don't know how well they've done at it though.

were links to DU and a video of cops in disguise following some protesters.

I'm not seeing anything showing those guys smashing windows...

I'd sure be interested if it shows up.

of time. Many of the things alleged in the past have turned out to be true: read about COINTELPRO.

Why dress up cops as anarchists? So that they can go apeshit in case there is a distraction, thereby making protesters look bad. Serves not other conceivable purpose.

I was just looking forward to seeing the videos.

An excellent video showing the use of this tactic, totally busted by the protesters.

I have seen any number of folks at protests who seemed likely to be cops dressed as protesters. I remember some folks I thought were cops posing as protesters at a rally in D.C> to protest the first Iraq war about to set the flag on fire. I talked them out of it, so maybe they were not actually cops.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrJ7aU-n1L8

It is not complete evidence that these guys are cops, but they look bigger than your average joe (like many cops), and they do not deny being cops when confronted numerous times.

friend shot and showed you, or you can see video on TV that does not make it to google.

I empathize with a need for verification of some claims made on message boards. But the fact that someone does not provide a link on demand neither proves nor disproves anything.

they get others to break the law (and do themselves) thus getting folks arrested.

That is just history. Historical evidence that it happens and is part of a bag of tricks to arrest protesters and their organizers.

and we were fortunate enough to have a savvy union guy out them... so if you truly don't believe police provocateurs are out there causing havoc at otherwise peaceful demonstrations I have a bridge to sell you real cheap.

requires the participation of many.

The police focus on a very few window-breakers and ignore the masses of peaceful protesters and the police abuses of them.

Then the right wing focuses on a very few window-breakers and ignores the masses of peaceful protesters and the police abuses of them.

Then the mainstream media focuses on a very few window-breakers and ignores the masses of peaceful protesters and the police abuses of them.

Then the repeaters on DU focus on a very few window-breakers and ignore the masses of peaceful protesters and the police abuses of them.

So it takes the police, the right wing, the mainstream media, and you - all working together - to successfully paint a false picture.

Nice teamwork.

Perhaps its hiding from your sense of righteous indignation?

Let me know if you find it.


No kidding the window-smashers were a small minority. To portray it as otherwise is to misrepresent the facts.

But I would hope that my tone here was self-evidently sarcastic. Perhaps not self-evidently enough...

10%? 5%? And why would you need to avoid being seen by police? Let's not forget that the OP points out that this fellow was a self-described anarchist. Wonder what his sign said at the protest.

That would be because the police were indiscriminately attacking protesters.

?

And you didn't answer what sign he had.

"I hate everybody"?

"Down with order"?

"Burn down the city"?

said. For example, he was not charge with inciting to riot via the message on his sign. He was charged bc his communicating things he was seeing agents of government doing in plain view on public streets allegedly hindered prosecution.

Protesters tend to worry about what the police might do to them, be it hiting them, arresting them, making them disperse, whatever. No reason to imply that protestors who want to keep their distance from police must have been doing something illegal. Police have their tactics that they employ routinely during protests, but so do protestors.

I will say this slowly for you:

Breaking
windows
is
not
a
acceptable
form
of
protest.

When people engage in illegal acts it makes news. No conspiracy necessary. And having people defend the people who do this does nothing but make all the protesters look bad. The media RW or other wise) doesn't have to "try and make them look bad." That is accomplished by the first defense of illegal behavior.

It is exactly the same thing as these idiots who are defending Roman Polanski. Here's a clue: if you don't like the right wing portraying "the left" as cheering and defending lawlessness, don't cheer or defend lawlessness.

...at least not yet. Maybe this dude was trying to help prevent peaceful protesters from being abused and illegally restricted by the out of control police? Nothing against the law about that.

If you think defending someone who twitters to protesters at the G20 is the same as defending a rapist then your moral equivalency compass is clearly very broken.

I wasn't addressing that. I was addressing the defense in the post I was responding to, of clearly illegal acts of breaking windows. Gee, I only said as much in my post.

I have serious concerns (as you do) about someone being arrested for twittering. Another poster said what I was thinking. The appriateness of his arrest depends on his intent: if he was helping them get as close as possible to make their voices heard, then the arrest is an unconstitutional infringement on his right to free speech. If there is evidence that he was setting up folks to assault the officers, then his arrest was appropriate.

defending window breakers? :shrug:

As such it minimizes the importance of those acts which were illegal.

As I said before, if we are going to be upset by our protests being made out to be unlawful or destructive, we MUST not in any way defend such actions and make it absolutely clear that we don't support or defend such actions.

Also to repeat, illegal activity makes the news. Period. It isn't a conspiracy my the RW or mainstream media when it gets reported.


Edited for spelling. I am a crappy typist. :-)

It was a tacit defense of window breaking, because by talking about something else I minimized the window breaking. Of course!

:rofl:

Dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life.

is defending window-breakers!

The issue is this: agents provocateur (and they are real!) commit acts of destruction and violence and give the police an excuse to use their new "crowd control" toys.

Example of provocateur here:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/provocateur-cops-caught-disguised-as-anarchists-at-g20.html

But do you or anyone else have any evidence that this was the case in Pittsburgh? Or is this an example of knee jerk rationalization and the kind of conspiratorial blame shifting that, lets say "others," are so good at? This is really the problem I have with my brothers further to the left of me (and I am fairly left -- much to my slightly right wing sister's consternation). I see a parallel between the irrational immediate conclusion that if some group on the left is accused of criminal behavior the immediate response is it must be some RW organizations fault.

Don't get me wrong. I fully acknowledge that false flag operations and agent provocateur exist and have been used. For example, the ACORN situation was PATENTLY manipulated by a RW group and hard information came out to support that fact damn near immediately. But without SOME evidence that it is the case in whatever incident you want to bring up, jumping to that conclusion just smacks of tin foil hat buffoonery.

All I am saying before I personally (which means nothing I know) am going to start blaming the police for this kind of stuff, I want to see some proof. Not just speculation based on nothing. And yes my default position is that 99% of cops and police organization are just out there trying to do their part to protect society from criminals, including people who go to protests and decide to throw brick through windows, and help keep the peace in their communities. I know that isn't a popular stance around here, but there it is never the less.

P.S. added on edit

P.S. Post #8 is a tacit defense through deflecting blame to this lame ass "it was the cops who broke the windows to make the protesters look bad" combined with "the media is trying to make them look bad by reporting the crimes committed."

(purportedly).

may or may not be a false accusation as to who broke windows, but it is not a defense of window breaking, no matter who did it, let alone a cheering of lawlessness in general.

If the teabagger's march was a failure, G-20 was a non-event.

Should we assume that 99.99999999% of the world supports G-20?

The window smashers were the only news.

But the march wasn't the real story of the march anyway. Nor was the predictable window breaking by whoever. The most important story was the police violence against hundreds of non-window breakers in response to the window breaking.

...the police shutting down demonstrations.

This is an unfortunate, but consistent fact of life.

When the "whoever" starts breaking windows and looting, it is a deliberate effort to get the police to do something newsworthy.

I follow some of the anarchist websites and they are usually falling all over themselves taking credit for the destruction.

You're asking me to choose between a predictable police response to a predictable anarchist tactic, or yet another equally predictable "conspiracy".

This is like asking me to believe that the news media is responsible for the actions of the people in the news they cover.

Shit happens, everybody tries to spin it, the media reports whatever they find interesting.

This is not Hope & Change, this is the same old "look at me" theater.

Problems make the news, while the solutions seldom do.

for centuries.

:rofl:

protesters so as to avoid the cops then I see the activity as constitutionally protected free speech. If, however, it is done to set traps for the cops to hurt them then it is criminal activity with a good dose of conspiracy to add to the charges.

it was used to avoid the cops

How about none and zero?

After all: ANARCHISTS!

People who destroyed property or assaulted people should be arrested for destruction of property or assault. Meanwhile the vast majority of the people protesting the G20 criminal cartel did no such thing.

All of which begs the question: when did it become a crime to discuss the activities of the police?

"Just toss the constitution"

here seem to want to confront the real issue of the thread. Was the arrest unconstitutional or not and, in either case, why?

it is not illegal. If there was something recently passed to prohibit, then the "journalist" needed to cite it. As to your comment regarding the safety of the officers:

If he was directing people away from the officers, then, the officers were never in danger. Make sense? He was charged with hindering prosecution? Prosecution of who? The people who were avoiding a confrontation the police who had committed no crime? Seems to me this guy did a service to society, he safely led the people through out the protest to ensure the peace, not to incite violence. Violence is what the police wanted.

I'm just guessing here, but maybe the legal theory is that there were groups of people having unlawful assemblies, evading police, aided by tweets?

arrest them. Destroying property and assulting people are also crimes. You arrest the perps. All this guy did was communicate what he saw in plain view on public streets. Newspaper, film, radio and TV reporters have been doing that in this country since the Boston "Massacre." It is not against the law and never has been. You don't arrest people for communicating things it is not against the law to communicate.

Cops aren't guaranteed safety -- it's not in their job description. We shouldn't curtail our right to free speech because someone might use that speech to harm others (and of course there's no evidence this guy was doing that).

Kettling is simply a way to generate a reason for the police to come in and crush the protesters simply by penning and hemming them in until somebody gets knocked over or shoved to the ground because it is too crowded. Then the police use that excuse to come in and attack with clubs and tear gas.

So sure, go ahead and arrest these guys, but if they are not going to prosecute the sergeants and commanders on the ground who intentionally, willfully created dangerous situations on the ground in order to crush peaceful protesters, then it's simply not justice. I'm probably going to wait until doomsday before the police are held to account, but oh well.

If protesters wanted to avoid kettling traps, then his Tweets may have proven to be of some value. Information is just that: information. It's how you use it. Teach a person how to harness nuclear energy, and he can either build reactors for a power grid, or he can use them to build H-bombs.

:shrug:

it isn't worth it today. The Police State Is Good. We Need To Worship The Police. Carry On.

monumental. :eyes:

hurt, killed or arrested during a non-Quiznos gathering.

protest the actions of the ruling corporations and they'll show no mercy.

at will!

If I read this right then some self styled anarchist ran circles around homeland insecurity by using tweeter bursts during the protests in Pittsburgh. And now that they think they have an ID they want to bust him to make a point?

The authorities better hope they can make their point because there appears to be a whole bunch of people suddenly waking up to that ol’ red pill, blue pill thing.

speech zone" I'd ever heard of. The Mayor of Boston then (and now) was Thomas Menino, Democrat.

Not putting down Dems in general, or Menino in particular. Just sayin'.

This should be thrown out of court in the first round!

the British cops that is, were coming?

"The Boston Massacre was an incident that led to the deaths of five civilians at the hands of British troops on March 5, 1770, the legal aftermath of which helped spark the rebellion in some of the British American colonies, which culminated in the American Revolution. A tense situation because of a heavy British military presence in Boston boiled over to incite brawls between soldiers and civilians and eventually led to troops discharging their muskets after being attacked by a rioting crowd."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre

In fairness, if the law had caught him in the act of yelling "By sea," they probably would have arrested him, too, or worse.

Fact remains, the United States would not have come into existence as an independent nation without a radical left wing and freedom to report stuff. Then again, the rebels were not anarchists, either.

FUCK THE PIGS!!! :grr:

I'll be interested to see what happens with this case. Seems like a pretty totalitarian police mind-set to me to try to criminalize tweeting, although I see we have some DUers who apparently all right with it.

the fact he may have been tweeting to prevent people from going to certain places where things were heated. Since we don't have a link to the actual tweets we don't know. He may have tried to prevent people from being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I am amazed that we are criminalizing this man as they recently did in Iran, yet we condemn Iran for everything they did during those protests and pretty much everything they do in general.

and tweet away in full knowledge that you can tweet whatever you want with impunity--at least until they are able to home in on you.

that the anarchists had said in advance they would target. The police got caught with their pants down.


Check out some of this footage, and you can see that the group that was breaking windows had no police chasing them, and based upon the backgrounds in the video (I am very familiar with the area) they were able to do so at a pretty leisurely pace given the amount of ground they covered. The banging sound is the breaking of windows. At the 3:00 mark the University Police station's windows are smashed, as the anarchists move from the business district onto the University grounds.

There was a large police presence about a half mile away, blocking the road that leads up to Phipps Conservatory where the world leaders were meeting, but virtually NONE in the business district where the banks and stores that were vandalized are located.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc1IGqlekvs&NR=1

have evidence, one way or the other?

Maybe they will try and portray it as aiding and abetting? Sort of like the times I have hear of people getting pulled over for blinking their headlights to warn of speed traps. Seems like it would be very hard/impossible to prove criminal by the person sending the tweets.

I would like to see the law that says you can't "twitter" or "give hand signals" or hell...even smoke signals to where the cops are going.

my friend got arrested for interfering with a police action.

in any event, its difficult to see how such an act would
interfere with a speed trap.

did the judge let him off with a warning? :D

at least not in any state i'm familiar with.

and my buddy got off completely- the prosecutor declined to pursue it- so the charges were dropped.

but he had a ton of hassle for that simple flash of the brights.

" No peace officer or other person shall use a speed trap in
arresting, or participating or assisting in the arrest of, any person
for any alleged violation of this code nor shall any speed trap be
used in securing evidence as to the speed of any vehicle for the
purpose of an arrest or prosecution under this code." CA Veh. Code 40801.

But I don't doubt your friend was arrested. What I doubt is whether the
arrest was legal. My second clue was when you told me the prosecutor
dropped the charges.

One great remedy is to run for (or help elect) the mayor, win,
then fire the chief and "restructure" (downsize) the police department,
taking special care that "bad officers" who abuse their office
are "restructured".

no- i did not know that.

seems odd. :shrug:

btw- just because a prosecutor declines to pursue a case- it doesn't mean that the action of the accused wasn't illegal.

Just so there is no confusion. :hi:

Just so there is no confusion. :hi:

Just so there is no confusion. :hi:

Just so there is no confusion. :hi:

for the sake of this discussion- as defined earlier- a "speed trap" is nothing more than a cop in a squad car with a radar gun- generally waiting around a curve or over the crest of a hill, but otherwise entirely in plain sight.
if that kind of speed trap is illegal in california, i wasn't aware of it- as i never drive in california.

illiteracy is a scourge on our nation- no wonder california is headed down the shitter.

and in CA when an arrest is blatantly illegal the
prosecutor will often decline to prosecute. mostly.
same in IL?

still, my friend, your sudden loss of 30 IQ points
is concerning. Perhaps a glass of OJ would refresh?

after that, check out the CA laws at
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
check veh code near the section I cited, it
provides the definition of a 'speed trap'

then check your own state law - bet you have
something quite similar.
cheers.

because you apparently have some.

i specifically and clearly said that i used the term 'speed trap' as a general term to describe a cop waiting up ahead with a radar gun- nothing more.

and as i said before as well- just because a prosecutor declines to pursue a case- it doesn't mean that the arrest was illegal or that the person's actions weren't illegal. there are any number of reasons that it isn't prosecuted- if the arresting officer isn't in court, for instance- but there are other reasons as well.

:eyes:

Just to clear things up even further.

A radar gun will give you the speed of the largest vehicle that is in the path of the radar wave. Not necessarily the fastest, slowest, or even the traffic direction that the Cop intends.

A lazer, on the other hand, has a scope and will give the Cop the speed of the exact vehicle he has targeted regardless of size.

say, can it also determine the air-speed of an unladen swallow?

are ye deef, lad?
I just explained and proved that speed traps are illegal.
and prosecutors are obliged to dismiss when they have no case.
helloooo?


:spank:

"speed trap" as in a cop ahead with a radar gun...

really- what part of that is so hard to understand?
you may be harping on "speed trap" as a legal definition-
but in the common parlance, a single cop in a squad car in plain sight regularly waiting around a curve or over the crest of a hill with a radar gun is referred to by most people as a "speed trap"- although i doubt that it fits the legal definition of one in your california law.

:eyes:
there are none so blind...

to others.

remember how you started this sub-thread, that your friend
had been arrested for flashing his lights to warn of a
speed trap ahead. from this you concluded that your friend
has done something illegal. you then revealed the charges
were dropped.

remember all that?

as I have been explaining quite courteously to you,
your conclusion doesn't follow.

first, the police action might simply be illegal, and not support
an arrest for interference.

second the "interference" you describe is similar to many
citizen actions taken to advise travelers of police presence
(CB, cell phones, web sites) all of which are extensively
used without generating arrests.

third, and this is very important, that the charges were
dropped gives you a pretty good clue the prosecutor did not
think he had the cahooties to stand in front of a judge
with that crock of shit.

fourth, applying these ideas to the "tweeter" arrest in
the OP, and adding that the PA Chief of Police is pretty
clearly engaging in a calculated campaign of illegal police
conduct with G20 protesters, we just got to figure the arrest
of the tweeter is more crap and that the charges will be
dropped.

this is the simple part. the more interesting part is
whether the Chief of Police may be charged with multiple
counts of violation of 18 USC 242. If I were an AG, I'd
be looking into that as we speak (vote for me).

in the common parlance, a cop waiting around a curve with a radar gun is a "speed trap"...

i can't help it if you're too thick to realize that...:shrug:

but- as was mentioned earlier, you should probably use the time to work on your comprehension skills.

later. :hi:

:hi:

you can't even comprehend the fact that screen names are chosen by the individual.

you've got a lot of work to do.

so, you don't let people to call you by your screen name?
you getting more amusing by the minute.

From the CA DMV:



The common use of the term is not the legal definition, in other words...

it means cop with a radar gun (or other electronic device)

on stretch of road (not a local street, road, or school zone)
where the prima facie speed limit is not supported by
an engineering and traffic survey conducted within the prior
five years

and don't forget that

" No peace officer or other person shall use a speed trap in
arresting, or participating or assisting in the arrest of, any person
for any alleged violation of this code nor shall any speed trap be
used in securing evidence as to the speed of any vehicle for the
purpose of an arrest or prosecution under this code." CA Veh. Code 40801.

Iran protesters good. American protesters bad. US invasion based on lies good. Russian invasion based on being attacked bad. Stolen US election with Presidents brother in charge good. Russian/Iranian/Venezuelan/Hamas election bad and illegitimate. Investigations of previous corrupt administration in the rest of the world necessary. In the US unnecessary. US torture good. Relations with torturing countries for oil good. All other countries that torture welcome to the Hague. US free pass! US military propaganda good. Everywhere else propaganda bad! US socialism bad. In Iraq US socialism good! In Afghanistan socialism good! Corporate welfare in US good. Individual welfare or money back directly to the people bad. Military police state everywhere else bad. Military police state with heat rays and high frequency noise control in the US good! Our reality is so warped at this point that we will never recover. That's the real America. Bin Laden didn't have to do a thing except watch us dismantle ourselves.

And one more thing. The article states the fella was an anarchist and paradoxically, a social worker. Why would an anarchist care to be a social worker? Obviously he cared about someone. It looks like our media and police are effectively contolling protest here in the good ole USA together. Both doing their bit stifling protest. The Quizno's BS was trivial compared to the police action in Pittsburgh. Wake up folks. It won't be long before typing a post like this one will be seen as being complicit in aiding an illegal protest.

they seem to be claiming he was an accessory to a crime.

(of annoying the chief, who's approach to policing seems to
have been drawn from idi amin dada's diary)

information is not up to him. This is about his (all of OUR) right to report on Police activities occurring IN PUBLIC VIEW.

This isn't about him tipping off police about to conduct a raid on a drug house.

This is about him using free speech to report on public events that the police CHOOSE to attend. Whether people react to that one way or the other is not his concern.

Attempting to suppress this use of free speech thwarts the public's DUTY to observe police activities in order to be vigilant of police brutality.

so is it like a citizen warning of raid on a drug house,
or more like a citizen reporting that something is up because
police are assembling in the street.

i'm sure the charges will be quietly dropped in a couple of weeks...

Gore Vidal warned us that America was turning into a fascist dictatorship. We must heed his warning.

The mindlessness is strong.

They love the WTO and IMF, and they blame anarchists for the violence instigated and provoked by the security forces.

of the corporate whores

just say'n...

this shit has been accumulating for a LONG time.. & its shockingly well-funded by AmeriKa at home & abroad.

Something worth considering: if all you care about is xenophobic American Interests, don't be surprised when eventually nobody defends *HUMAN* interests...



perspective.

BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
The Jeff Farias Show
streams FREE & LIVE Mon-Fri, 6-9pmEDT

FREE podcast


"We, two, form a Multitude" - Ovid.
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"
"Violence can only be concealed by a Lie, & the Lie can only be maintained by Violence." ... "Any man, who has once proclaimed Violence as his Method, is inevitably forced to take the Lie as his Principle" – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

Where do they thing this is, Iran?

;-)

So what if he did this. It's like saying he couldn't call them on his cell or shout over the way
at them.

I'm totally disgusted with these so called Democratic big cities rolling over for those who apparently
have not read the first amendment. We've passed the point of a free society when this crap goes on
and nobody at the G-20 conference said a single thing.

If you warn people in the commission of a crime that the police are coming, you become an accomplice.

So what exact crimes did he aid and abet?

what if you warn people of a police action
who are not committing a crime?

like say, a person videotaping an arrest?
or broadcasting an arrest live?

Was there some specific crime going on?

I don't think we have enough facts yet to reach a lot of conclusions. I could not even find the statute online, though I did find bits of it in some Pennsylvania court cases with which Mr. Google presented me.

hindering police is a separate crime, in CA any person
who "willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer
... in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or
her office or employment..." can be fined $1000 and or
imprisoned for one year. serious stuff.

no crime need actually be involved, merely interfering
with the discharge of duty is enough.

in my view the interference must be substantial and should
also be for good reason... people should look at the circumstances
and basically agree "yeah, that was right"... but
police tend to use it aggressively and sometimes maliciously,
since there is rarely consequence for misuse.

there is another prong, but basically the question here is
whether the conduct substantially interfered with police
action and whether, even if it did, whether the conduct
is protected by the first amendment. if the latter, the police
might later be sued for violating the civil rights of the tweeters.

Somehow, I don't think the Chief of Police pf Pittsburg
cares much either way.

because I am not on Twitter

What are posts you never see on DU, Alex?

and a good friend of mine lives with him. I know his parents as well (great democrats) as well.