Judge upholds warrants against war protesters

[maddezmom]

Source: Sun Times

April 17, 2008
By Jennifer Golz [e-mail]
The 911 call alerting police to two war protesters was played in court last week during a hearing on whether to quash the warrants that have kept Jeff Zurawski and Sarah Hartfield in the public eye.

"It looks like they hung a bunch of (expletive) off the bridge," truck driver Charles Hardin told a police dispatcher May 6. "They were acting like they were throwing stuff off the bridge. "Nothing hit my windshield, but I've seen a lot of people get scared with kids throwing rocks and stuff," he said.
~snip~

Hartfield, of Naperville, and Zurawski, of Downers Grove, were charged with disorderly conduct weeks after the protest, during which they hung a banner that read "Impeach Bush and Cheney - LIARS" from the Great Western Trail above I-355. Alongside the banner hung an upside-down American flag.

Although DuPage County sheriff's deputies had contact with Zurawski and Hartfield that day, neither was immediately arrested or cited. Instead, warrants were issued three weeks later on the charge of disorderly conduct.



Read more: http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/downersgrovesun/news/895753,6_1_NA17_PROTEST_S1.article

[stellanoir]

1. Now the 1st & 4th amendment have gone POOF

Oh joy

[amihol]

5. hehe :)

[jtrockville]

2. Does everyone who hangs a sign get a warrant issued for their arrest?

Like all those Ron Paul signs I see everywhere - where are the arrests for the folks who hung those?
:shrug:

[gratuitous]

3. "I was scared" says trucker

So two people get their rights as citizens flushed. This encapsulates the Bush administration pretty well. If you're scared, you can do anything to anybody at anytime. We'll make the charge . . . uhhhhh, "disorderly conduct"! Yeah, that's the ticket.

[Outraged As Usual]

4. Nonsense

Disorderly Conduct is a breach of the peace. An ESSENTIAL element of a breach of the peace is VIOLENCE, either actual or immanent. If there was no violence, there was no disorderly conduct. It is just a generic law that police abuse all the time in order to have a catch-all way to harass people. I cannot imagine why they chose this statute, as it is totally wrong.

Locally here in North Carolina, in Asheville a man was charged with doing the same thing, hanging a banner, but they used some DOT law about not blocking a sidewalk, but it was dismissed in court as no one was blocked. The cop's just want the last word is all, and use laws improperly to bother the lawful citizen. The fact that it took weeks to get this garbage moving means it was totally political and a sham. It disregards all law and common sense.

Shame on those prosecutors and whoever was involved in this: Plead NOT guilty and cost the town a fortune if possible and watch this get thrown out fast: No judge can alter the very meaning of the law, and the law says that without actual or immanent violence, there is no breach and therefore no conduct that is ' disorderly '.

[Orsino]

6. Disorderly conduct sounds like an appropriate charge...

...based on the reports that the pair were pretending to throw things and causing vehicles to swerve. That no charges were filed until these reports came in is reassuring. It's unfortunate that there's no video evidence either to exonerate or convict the defendants, and if the witnesses are lying, what can be done?

Now, if the witnesses can be shown to be perjuring themselves based on political opposition, or if authorities conspired to deny civil rights, we oughta be all over this.

The saddest thing is that the securing of our civil liberties now seems to require carrying a video camera everywhere you might want to use your First Amendment rights.

[jezur67]

8. There is no evidence of any traffic disturbance during

the protest, only heresay from the 911 caller, whose story is shakey at best. This prosecution STINKS! Here is a recent editorial that suggests the case should be dismissed. I agree. NOTE: the last sentence is sarcasm. I can assure you, the charges have not be dropped:

The Press
Thursday, April 17,2008

Opinion

Our View

Case against protesters has too many questions

How questionable does evidence have to be before a criminal case is
dismissed in DuPage County?

Circuit Court Judge-Ronald Sutter last week declined to toss a case
against Sarah Hartfield, 45, Of Naperville and Jeff Zurawski, 39, Of
Downers Grove. They were arrested a year ago after displaying a banner
reading "Impeach Bush and Cheney - Liars" as well as an upside-down U.
S. flag on the Great Western Trail bridge above Interstate 355.

During the April 10 proceeding, the prosecution played a record ing of
the 911 call that truck driver Charles Hardin made as he witnessed the
incident. He referred to Hartfield and Zurawski as "two youths" who were
"acting like they were throwing stuff at the windshields" of passing
cars below.

Hardin said in the 911 call that nothing struck his windshield, and he
admitted, in court that he did not see either defendant make any kind of
throwing motion. But, he said, traffic on the three -lane highway had
"slowed to a crawl" as cars tried to move out of the center lane.

Hardin seems to offer differing versions of what happened. Either he
observed the defendants act "like they were throwing stuff at the
windshields" (from his 911 call), or he didn't (as he admitted in court
last week). And was he focused on what cars on the highway were doing or
whether those on the bridge were tossing rocks?

State's Attorney Joseph Birkett previously has pointed out that his
office needs additional prosecutors because his staffers are overworked,
and he's right. So he dismissed the charges against Hartfield and
Zurawski, thus freeing his prosecutors to concentrate on a case where
it's clear a crime actually has been committed.

http://www.mysuburbanlife.com

[bdamomma]

7. do not let them silence us.