this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2024
178 points (97.8% liked)

News

1748 readers
1 users here now

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
all 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 56 points 1 year ago (3 children)

They don't care. The purpose wasn't to charge them, since the powers-that-be already know that protesting isn't a crime.

The purpose was to get them off the scene. It doesn't matter that the charges are automatically dropped, what matters is that they drag the protesters away in that moment.

[–] ivanafterall@kbin.social 23 points 1 year ago

And to deter others thinking of protesting. "You can't do this, see?" Historically, that usually works, right? People just settle down and go home?

[–] nbailey@lemmy.ca 22 points 1 year ago

As long as there’s no consequences for this kind of Pinkerton shit, it’s only going to get worse.

[–] SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Why isn't the very act of disturbing their protest by violence unconstitutional? (Edit: unless the protesters are infringing somebody's right to property ofc)

[–] Car@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Dropped charges don’t necessarily mean that the records have been cleared. These 57 demonstrators may have an arrest on record for the rest of their lives. They’ll have to explain that while trying to rent a house, get a job, or any other number of things.

[–] maynarkh@feddit.nl 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Their social credit got besmirched I guess. Why do employers or landlords even have access to this info?

[–] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Because it's a police state

[–] HowMany@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Of course they were dropped - they were illegally arrested.

[–] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

That's how you curb free speech.