No mention in the article of what laws, if any, are alleged to have been broken by the arrestees.
I may be old fashioned but that still seems important to me.
It’s Massachussets, a heavily blue state so I imagine they have 9 billion gun laws preventing people from owning a water pistol to a rifle
Maybe none; maybe being heavily armed in public in MA is a violation. At any rate, a cop thought they might be suspicious, doing his job, asked them for ID and they ran. It follows that further inquiry is indicated, which is what happened. But first, of course, they have to be asked again, thus necessitating their temporary detention. If the government is entitled to spy on unarmed TV journalists, then one suspects they might be given a bit of latitude to inquire about this group. Agree?
I’m with you - there’s a lack details. Seems like an instance of being arrested for ‘suspicion’ - which is just Police asserting what they *want* to do, which doesn’t mean any laws have been broken, all while they may be violating 4th Amendment rights.
They’re “fringe”. I think that’s illegal now, right?