4 protesters who climbed trees arrested

[cory777]

Source: Associated Press

ARCADIA, Calif. – Authorities say four tree sitters who tried to stop bulldozers from clearing 11 acres of oaks and sycamores in Arcadia have been removed from the trees and arrested.

Los Angeles County sheriff's Lt. Julio Salcido says two men, including veteran tree-sitter John Quigley, and two women were escorted out of the trees at about 8:30 p.m. Wednesday and taken into custody. He says they were being booked on suspicion of delaying a peace officer and trespassing.

The arrests culminated a daylong standoff between the activists and Los Angeles County public works crews who were trying to clear out the trees, some of them more than 100 years old, to ensure the integrity of a nearby dam.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110113/ap_on_re_us/us_tree_dispute_7

---

Activist News http://activistnews.blogspot.com

[old mark]

1. K&R- Booked on "suspicion of delaying a peace officer"?

What the fuck is that?

Lawsuit time!


mark

[SkyDaddy7]

2. I am not a lawyer but is that just a long way of saying...

Obstruction??

[No Elephants]

4. Obstruction of what? Their own arrest?

[boppers]

7. Obstruction of others.

They went on to other people's property, and squatted.

[SkyDaddy7]

8. RELAX...I was replying to someone else's comment who...

you obvioulsy did not read...The very first comment on the thread go read it then my comment should make a bit more sense.

[boppers]

3. It's a "you're an asshole" charge.

Being annoying and wasting everybody's time tends to land people in jail.

[No Elephants]

5. Being an asshole, being annoying and wasting time are not crimes or trolls would pack jails.

Are we shredding the Due Process Clause?

[boppers]

6. Trolls do pack jails.

They get their Due Process like everybody else.

Been in jail lately?

[SkyDaddy7]

9. Just because the protesters might have been...

doing something folks here on DU would consider honorable it seems these protesters were on someone else's property, delaying or obstructing the removal of trees that obviously were being removed legally & then obstructing an officer who was trying to stop them from obstructing the process of removing the trees.

It sucks the trees had to be removed but I guess it was the trees or the dam & I think we all know who will win that battle everytime.

Were you the TROLL that the other poster said should be in jail? Or are there other trolls the jail should be packed with?

[No Elephants]

11. No. I have no quarrel with the arrest for tresspassing, regardless of whether some might approve

of the reason for the trespass. However, I was responding to Boppers post about landing in jail for things like wasting time and being annoying. I said that would be unconstitutional. Do you disagree?

And why are you asking Boppers what my post means? How would s/he know that any better than you do?

[SkyDaddy7]

13. "why are you asking Boppers what my post means?"

Well, to be honest, I thought you were looking for a fight & I wanted to avoid one...Again, if you go back & read the post boppers wrote just before the "being an asshole charge" of "being annoying & wasting someone's time" it would appear he was just describing the valid charge of obstruction in a somewhat serious but humorous fashion. But I guess you missed the post or the humor

[No Elephants]

14. Great imagination you must have!

btw, how is your asking boppers if I mean s/he should be in jail you trying to AVOID a fight? My first impression was that you were the one trying to stir pots, even though my post to boppers did not involve you at all.

Guess we were both wrong, eh?

[boppers]

19. Well, I guess you folks hashed something out, eh?

I try to avoid trollish behavior now, FWIW.

[No Elephants]

10. No. Due process includes not being arrested for vaguely defined crimes, or

for "crimes" such as your prior post described, namely, being as asshole, wasting people's time and being annoying. If people are jailed for "crimes such as your prior post described, they most definitely have been deprived of Due Process.

And being on a message board, and referring to people who are only annoying, assholes and wasters of the time of others, I obviously meant message board trolls. What on earth do you mean by trolls pack jail--actual criminals?

As for whether I've been in jail lately, irrelevant much?

[Riftaxe]

17. Most likely Code §148(a)(1)

Not sure exactly what you find vague about it :shrug: They were also arrested for trespassing, perhaps you have heard of that or i can track down that statute for you as well.


148. (a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

(2) Except as provided by subdivision (d) of Section 653t, every person who knowingly and maliciously interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with the transmission of a communication over a public safety radio frequency shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

(b) Every person who, during the commission of any offense described in subdivision (a), removes or takes any weapon, other than a firearm, from the person of, or immediate presence of, a public officer or peace officer shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year or in the state prison.

(c) Every person who, during the commission of any offense described in subdivision (a), removes or takes a firearm from the person of, or immediate presence of, a public officer or peace officer shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison.

(d) Except as provided in subdivision (c) and notwithstanding subdivision (a) of Section 489, every person who removes or takes without intent to permanently deprive, or who attempts to remove or take a firearm from the person of, or immediate presence of, a public officer or peace officer, while the officer is engaged in the performance of his or her lawful duties, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year or in the state prison.

In order to prove a violation of this subdivision, the prosecution shall establish that the defendant had the specific intent to remove or take the firearm by demonstrating that any of the following direct, but ineffectual, acts occurred:

(1) The officer's holster strap was unfastened by the defendant.

(2) The firearm was partially removed from the officer's holster by the defendant.

(3) The firearm safety was released by the defendant.

(4) An independent witness corroborates that the defendant stated that he or she intended to remove the firearm and the defendant actually touched the firearm.

(5) An independent witness corroborates that the defendant actually had his or her hand on the firearm and tried to take the firearm away from the officer who was holding it.

(6) The defendant's fingerprint was found on the firearm or holster.

(7) Physical evidence authenticated by a scientifically verifiable procedure established that the defendant touched the firearm.

(8) In the course of any struggle, the officer's firearm fell and the defendant attempted to pick it up.

(e) A person shall not be convicted of a violation of subdivision (a) in addition to a conviction of a violation of subdivision (b), (c), or (d) when the resistance, delay, or obstruction, and the removal or taking of the weapon or firearm or attempt thereof, was committed against the same public officer, peace officer, or emergency medical technician.. A person may be convicted of multiple violations of this section if more than one public officer, peace officer, or emergency medical technician are victims.

(f) This section shall not apply if the public officer, peace officer, or emergency medical technician is disarmed while engaged in a criminal act.

(Amended Sec. 8, Ch. 853, Stats. 1999. Effective January 1, 2000.)

[boppers]

20. A lesson in relevance:

If you are not familiar with jail, you would not be familiar with the fine folks who wind up in it. A great many of them have highly confrontational personalities, who are very much certain of themselves, i.e. trolls.

[melm00se]

24. there are several laws

on the books that are the equivalent of "you are doing something wrong but I can't recall the specific law so I going to cite you for the "disturbing the peace" or "interfering with a police officer doing his duty" or some such charge".

have caught a couple of those in my life (in my case all appearance tickets...the equivalent of a parking ticket)

these are safety valve laws that allow officers to take action when some sort of action is required to defuse a situation.

[quaker bill]

12. my guess would be

The minimum charge necessary to justify removing them from the trees. If they fight, the charge will probably get upgraded, if they plead no contest, they will probably walk off with a nominal fine.

[old mark]

15. So it's really " Suspicion of Making an Officer Grumpy"?....Fucking police state....nt

[yellowcanine]

25. Cut in line in front of a deputy at Dunkin Donuts?

[Odin2005]

16. What kind of BS charge is that?

:crazy:

[Peace Patriot]

18. I'm very sorry to hear that they didn't save these trees, and I thank them for trying! nt

[Raine]

21. Me too, I really appreciate their efforts

I'm just sad they didn't succeed.

[The2ndWheel]

23. Doomed from the start really

If the tree needs to be cut down, it will be. If the tree doesn't have to be cut down at the current moment, then their effort in trying might be successful...until the tree needs to come down.

[Peace Patriot]

26. What kind of "conservative" doom and gloom is this?

"Needs" to be cut down? Who's saying?

Trees are cut down all the time, for various projects, WITH NO NEED WHATEVER TO DO SO. It just adds a little "filthy lucre" to the project--likely money to pay for gummint paper clips, in this case, since the big corps and super-rich ain't gonna pay their rightful taxes.

The World Wildlife Fund says we have 50 years, at present levels of deforestation, pollution and consumption--50 years to the DEATH OF THE PLANET!

Shouldn't be cutting down ANY trees that can be preserved. With a little thought, on projects like this, they CAN be preserved. It is mindless stupidity not to try.

We should be planting trees and other greenery everywhere we can. Goddamn, the DEATH OF THE FRIGGING PLANET! That's what we're looking at!

And, OLD trees are particularly important because of their function as wildlife habitat. As we kill the planet, we are also killing off thousands of species and destroying the rich bio-diversity out of which we evolved, that is essential to our health and survival, and that is an essential component of earth's ecology. Loving Nature ain't just "romanticism." All of its critters are important to the whole. An example is a salmon stream. The salmon fight their way upstream, spawn and die--in pasttimes in the millions. Their carcasses fertilize the soil that grows the trees and other plants that make the forest--habitat for so many others. The trees growing tall--i.e., OLD--also cools the stream water--essential to the survival of salmon eggs, once they are deposited in the stream. Slim margin of survival as to temperature. Big shade needed.

Every OLD tree is especially important, in one way or another--there are so few left. Something in me dies inside hearing of ONE HUNDRED YEAR OLD trees being cut down by some stupid bureaucratic bullshit. Do you have any idea how little controls there are on bullshit like this, and how thoroughly public process and our common good are foiled?

I've been through more than ten years of this bullshit, more than ten full years of my life, as an environmental activist--in California--and I can tell you, the common good has no voice any more--NONE! Not even in California.

They could have saved these trees, believe me. THEY DIDN'T WANT TO.

[warram]

22. UC Irvine Beats This

11 students were arrested for chalking not too long ago. A little harsh a penalty, I think. Activism at its best. Kudos to the tree sitters!

[MisterP]

27. this is what is at stake