>>>>>>>Ah, but don't forget; liberals feel disenfranchised even if it's a republican who is locked up unfairly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So who is going to be locked up unfairly. If you are unruly, you get locked up FAIRLY!
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, it isn't quite that simple. At the RNC in NYC in 2004, a buddy of Solomon's (who was about to enter Columbia Law School) was on hand simply to be a monitor. That is, he was observing the demonstrations and the police response. He was among those arrested when the police came around with big bunches of plastic fencing and rolled up everyone present in it and took them to jail. I can't remember how long they held him. Not surprisingly, all charges against him were dropped. Last I knew, he was still involved with a lawsuit against the city.
>>>>>
>>>>>Tamar
>>>>
>>>>And he did not leave when the police told the crowd to leave.
>>>
>>>Um, since when do the police have the right to tell people on a public street to leave unless it's a crime scene?
>>>
>>>Tamar
>>
>>Um, since the police have the duty and obligation to maintain order.
>
>Yeah. In the situation in question, there was no loss of order, unless you consider protesting against government policy a loss of order. Seems to me the right of the people to peaceably assemble is a Constitutional guarantee.
>
>Tamar

As with the 2nd Amendment, certain restrictions have been placed on the Constitutional right to free assembly, including but not limited to the need for a permit to gather/protest on a city street and the right of police to disburse a crowd they deem unruly or uncontrollable. Since these are relative terms, and different ordinances abound around the country, it is quite possible that refusing a request from an officer to disburse is all that's legally needed to detain.