local

From the archive: This story is more than 10 years old.

Comments on

32 cited in second night of Occupy Tucson protest

Tucson police arrested 32 Occupy Tucson demonstrators who refused to vacate downtown's Armory Park after closing time Sunday night, a departmental spokesman said.
have your say   

6 comments on this story

1
1 comments
Oct 16, 2011, 11:53 pm
-2 +1

This is the second article in a row that calls the citations “arrests”.

So if I get caught speeding tomorrow, and I get a ticket, which, by the way, probably costs as much or more as these will, do I say I was “arrested” for speeding?

I think this is stupid and inflammatory for two reasons.

First, it shows a complete lack of awareness of what people in other cities like NY and Boston and Seattle and even Phoenix are going through with REAL arrests, and beatings, and sprayings and everything else. THAT is being arrested for civil disobedience, not taking a break from watching a movie and socializing to pick up your ticket.

Second, the TPD have worked well so far with protesters. They are the 99% too. All of them, even the chief. they take risks every day that most of us don’t in our office jobs. This character assasinating use of the word “arrest” makes them sound like the thugs in NYC, like Tony Baloney. Unfair.

But I am sure it will increase your website traffic, so whatever, right?

2
1770 comments
Oct 17, 2011, 7:21 am
-1 +1

Ummmmm…..if a cop doesn’t allow you to leave, that’s being under arrest.

Granted, the I-don’t-know-what-I’m-protesting-but-I’m-here-to-be-a-drama-queen-and-make-an-ass-out-of-myself idiots were most likely under arrest for only as long as it took the cop to write up the citation, but yes a criminal citation counts as an arrest. I’ve heard cops refer to it as a “paper arrest’.

You’re speeding analogy is inapplicable as that is a traffic thing and not criminal. Whole different thing.

3
556 comments
Oct 17, 2011, 8:19 am
-0 +2

Hi betsy & Bret:

Please note that we purposefully used the word “cited” in our headline, as opposed to “arrest.” We didn’t want to create the impression that a situation involving force had taken place.

But “arrests” are what took place: protesters where arrested, given a criminal citation, and released at the scene. See TPD’s official description:

Ultimately, 32 demonstrators were arrested, issued a criminal citation, and field released at the scene.

It’s not character assassination to use the precise language that the police themselves used.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

4
1 comments
Oct 17, 2011, 6:54 pm
-0 +0

Arresting/citing peaceful protesters was the criminal act. The “official” who ordered the arrests should be removed from his/her position. It demonstrates how much control the “wall street” interests have over our politicians. Even the mayor of NY refrained from arresting peaceful protesters after they exposed his disingenuous ploy of claiming the need to clean the park. Our police are now charged with dispersing a peaceful protest rather than chasing felons. Shame on us for allowing it to happen. I also hope each protestor that was arrested asks for a jury trial. I, for one, would never convict. Would you?

5
1770 comments
Oct 17, 2011, 7:46 pm
-0 +0

Tranceweaver asserted:

     
     
Arresting/citing peaceful protesters was the criminal act. The “official” who ordered the arrests should be removed from his/her position. It demonstrates how much control the “wall street” interests have over our politicians. Even the mayor of NY refrained from arresting peaceful protesters after they exposed his disingenuous ploy of claiming the need to clean the park. Our police are now charged with dispersing a peaceful protest rather than chasing felons. Shame on us for allowing it to happen. I also hope each protestor that was arrested asks for a jury trial. I, for one, would never convict. Would you?

     
     
     
     

in a heartbeat.

6
556 comments
Oct 17, 2011, 7:51 pm
-0 +0

Given the nature of the offense and the potential penalty, it’s questionable whether there is any right to trial by jury for violating T.C.C. 21-3(7)(3)

Any lawyers out there want to weigh in?

— 30 —

{/exp:weblog:entries}

Best in Internet Exploder