Time recently came out with an article titled "These Black Lives Matter Protesters Had No Idea How One Arrest Could Alter Their Lives." In the beginning of the article it specifically focuses on the experience of a 24-year-old African American man named D'Angelo Sandidge and how his effort "to find camaraderie among people who can relate to his pain" turned into being arrested and going to jail. After finding out about the injustice done to George Floyd on June 1, 2020, Sandidge decided to make a poster that read, "no justice, no peace, no calmness in the street" and headed to a Black Lives Matter protest in downtown Indianapolis. That night, D'Angelo was arrested and accused of violating curfew and resisting arrest by fleeing. According to the police, D'Angelo tried reaching into his backpack which had, "a taser and a can of bear spray" as he fled from them. However, D'Angelo claims that these are items he always carries for self-protection. He ended up not being charged for the curfew violation, but he "faces up to a year in prison and a fine of up to $5,000 if convicted of resisting arrest." Even if it turns out to be a misdemeanor, the charge will still show up on his permanent record.
This situation is tricky, because D'Angelo was exercising his First Amendment rights of speech, peaceful assembly, and petition, but he was also breaking the law by violating a curfew enforced by the government. What makes this even trickier is that he ended up not being charged for the curfew violation but for resisting arrest instead. However, if the police weren't going to arrest him for the law he actually broke then it doesn't seem like they should be able to charge him for running away when he was just peacefully protesting which is not a crime. There is not enough information to say whether D'Angelo became physical or violent while at the protest, but assuming he was standing there peacefully holding a sign, then the First Amendment should protect his rights in this situation. While the bedrock principals of the First Amendment state that protection is not absolute and that it is not a shield against laws of general applicability, I don't think that what D'Angelo did was controversial or questionable enough for those principals to apply in the first place. I think it would be a different story if the police decided to arrest him for breaking curfew which is a legitimate crime, but just standing at a protest with a sign should not be considered a crime that isn't protected by the First Amendment. I do think it's important to keep in mind that the whole story might not have been covered in the article, so there is a chance that D'Angelo did in fact take action in ways that are not protected by the First Amendment and are considered illegal and warranting of an arrest. Also, while he could have just had the taser and can of bear spray for self-protection like he claimed to, I don't think it is wrong for the police to at least look into the suspicious situation since there's a chance he could have potentially used the items for harm too. Overall, I would say that there is not enough information to know the truth of the situation, but assuming the story was how D'Angelo explained, he had every right to protest the way he was without getting arrested or having his First Amendment rights violated.
News Source: https://time.com/5880229/arrests-black-lives-matter-protests-impact/
Courtesy D'Angelo Sandidge
No comments:
Post a Comment