Nope. Neither do I.
Posted on 04/23/2020 6:34:52 PM PDT by rintintin
In San Diego, a woman who police say organized a weekend protest could face a misdemeanor charge for allegedly encouraging others to violate stay-at-home orders meant to slow the spread of COVID-19.
A police spokesman said the department forwarded the case to the San Diego City Attorney’s Office for review on Tuesday. The move comes after some, including civil rights activists, questioned why police did not cite protesters last weekend for ignoring the orders.
A misdemeanor conviction could result in up to six months of jail time and fines of up to $1,000. As of Monday, the City Attorney’s Office had not received any cases related to violations of the orders, a spokeswoman said. The office declined to answer questions Wednesday about whether the case had been received or charges had been filed.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
..Sorry, pal. That’s not possible here. Notice that they want to charge her with a crime carrying six months of jail time. The US Supreme Court has ruled that you can request a jury trial only if you are charged with a crime carrying more than six months of jail time...
sorry pal california constitution provides for right to jury trial in all criminal misdemeanor or felony trials (not infractions)
The appropriate response is another much bigger protest.
President Trump sets them up and liberals take the bait.... every time! The expose themselves as the totalitarians they are AND the voters see it.
“There is no legal mechanism that allows for the suspension of civil rights, not even under martial law. “
Correct. Our civil rights persist through any and every domestic situation.
However, their adjudication often must wait until the “emergency” is over and the courts reconvene. Not unlike the brutal invasion of Dixie.
You guys are really giving the other good guys with a badge a bad reputation.
JBT
4 out of 5 anyway...
And the 14th Amendment was enacted AFTER the Civil War, so no judicial decisions prior to enactment of the 14th Amendment are controlling. AFAIK, there aren't any federal court rulings since the 14th Amendment's enactment on whether emergencies such as epidemics can be used by state or local governments to justify prohibition of petitions for redress of grievances.
So, at this time, the only justification for such a prohition that I know of is a proclamatiion of martial law by a state governor, though the latter can do so retroactively to justify actions taken by local authorities during the heat of a new emergency before a governor has time to consider the matter.
I don’t know what people are saying in San Diego, but in Orange County people are this close to just ignoring the stupidest “shutdown” theater on their own.
They’ll wear masks, probably, and social distance for sure, but people are going to need to go back work. This is simply unsustainable, regardless of the public health risks.
I’m just trying to see how this would fly in the courts. You’re punished for organizing a protest against a stay at home order by enforcing the stay at home order?
It’s not martial law, no one has suspended the constitution, and effectively it’s a 24 hour a day never ending curfew with no defined standards for when it ends. And issued by the unelected ‘county health officer’? They’re just making stuff up as they go along, and one day it will be considered by the federal courts and probably be found to be wanting.
Since the law presently offers freedom of movement for ‘essential tasks’, then I’d say quite clearly that exerting the most basic human right of protest against the government is absolutely an essential task and requires no permission from the government to do.
That it is!
What SD Municipal Code did she violate?
Nope. Neither do I.
That's one of those rare instances where legally wearing your mask could help you out!
> california constitution provides for right to jury trial in all criminal misdemeanor or felony trials <
Wow. If that’s true then California is actually doing something that is right and just.
But I wonder if it can be ignored. After all, the US Constitution also provides for right to a jury trial in all criminal misdemeanor or felony trials. And that is routinely ignored. It can be ignored because the Supreme Court says it can be ignored.
That’s how they got Sheriff Joe Arpaio convicted. The Feds charged him with a crime carrying a maximum six month sentence. Arpaio asked for a jury trial. It was refused. He was convicted by a judge.
This woman faces possible criminal charges for organizing a 1st Amendment protected protest, yet California harbors illegal aliens as a sanctuary state. Yup, makes sense to me. //sarc//
San Diego has become a Marxist shithole. Too bad. Heard it was once a nice conservative place.
California did.
Look up IT's constitution to see if a similar clause is found therein.
That’s all well and good, but historically, this has been interpreted as applying to all governing bodies.
California has been a Socialist S-hole in-the-making for a long time. This is absolutely not in any way suprising.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.