… didn’t the police already close off any ability to leave with that fence that closed behind them earlier? How is anyone supposed to disperse with that in the way?
(Or was that put up by the protesters to stop the police from approaching?)
It’s a flimsy-looking chain link fence, and it didn’t even seem to have any supports. My son could defeat it easily.
Nymph
RELEASE TAFFY’S SON! ALLOW HIM TO BULLDOZE THE SHACKLES OF OUR OPPRESSORS!
Clif
HEAR, HEAR!!
Tequila Mockingbird
Permission to request Liam Neeson (or someone who can do a really good Liam Neeson impression because I ain’t made of money) read this out loud with all the melodramatic bravado of the one scene anyone remembers from the Clash of the Titans remake.
misabiko
While I don’t disagree, based on their pfp I can’t help to think that to Taffy’s son, anything is flimsy-looking and could be defeated easily.
the police did it! it’s a technique called “kettling”; they block off protestors’ ability to disperse and then arrest them for not dispersing (while teargassing/trampling them in the process)
They aren’t supposed to leave. They’re supposed to get arrested because they disobeyed the order to leave. The fact that the pigs made it physically imposible for them to leave is irrelevent, they gave an order and it wasn’t obeyed.
See also situations where two police are present and each gives a different order where it’s impossible to obey both.
Smallmoon
The really fucked thing? That’s SOP because ‘giving conflicting orders confuses the suspect, making it harder for them to come up with a lie on the spot and/or think about attacking the officers’ This ALSO “justifies” the use of lethal force if a weapon is in the ‘suspect’s’ hand, because now they’re armed and disobedient.
deliverything
I couldn’t help noticing that, despite your judicious use of quotation marks, you omitted the ones around ‘weapon’. Curiously, the definition of this word often seems to vary based on the person holding the object in question…
Proxiehunter
Or not holding in the case of teenagers armed with the pavement.
Arianod
It’s a Catch 22 scenario: they make it impossible for people to disperse, then order them to disperse. In a police state, you can get away with doing stuff like that.
thejeff
Most likely, it’s set up to control access. It prevents more people from coming in to support the protest, but still has a gate or other controlled spot to let people leave.
Once the time limit’s up and the cops do move in to arrest everyone who refused to leave, it also serves to keep them from scattering when the tear gas is used.
Proxiehunter
That’s not how kettling works.
thejeff
We’ll see what happens, though even that just depends on Willis’s understanding of what’s likely and of course on what works for the story.
Blakey
It is absolutely textbook standard for the dogs to prevent protestors from leaving in this scenario. The order to disperse isn’t for obeying, it’s for pressing charges later.
thejeff
Rarely at these early stages in the protest though. After a couple of attempts to clear the area, sure. Or after a couple nights of confrontations, absolutely.
Very rarely as the first move.
And both Jocelyne and Leslie seem to think Joyce and Dorothy can still get out, despite expecting to be arrested themselves.
No no, Being a cop causes an appetite for donuts.
Seeing a cop is the cheese flavored crackers.
And if you’re a cop who sees another cop, you crave super donuts, which were a thing in American public school lunches where you’d place a slice of American cheese on top of the generic lunch donut and eat the combo (not a thing found in all areas).
Yeah, what is this, a real threat to people’s real lives? Cops aren’t for those, they’re there for stopping harmless things, like a peaceful protest where nobody’s armed, or a Black person trying to watch TV in their apartment after 7pm.
Tequila Mockingbird
Ah… laughing while crying bitterly. What was once such a rare emotion seems to now be a nearly daily occurrence.
Laws giving the power to police to declare an unlawful assembly contain a time period between the declaration and the point at which they can make arrests in order to give people time to disperse. That goes all the way back to the U.K. Riot Act of 1715, which once read out gave people 1 hour to disperse before arrest.
Yes. If it was determined that an assembly was unlawful (ie, people were trying to express any kind of solidarity or to resist an injustice), an officer would literally read out the “riot act”, which was the actual action required to make the assembly unlawful. The text to be read out runs:
“Our sovereign lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the act made in the first year of King George, for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God save the King.”
Apparently more than one conviction was overturned because the officer failed to read out part of the text, especially the final sentence.
Just cynically speculating here, but… if they are indeed sealed in, as suggested by other commenters, a delay gives the protestors time to find out there’s no exit, panic, and maybe resort to desperate measures which can be conveniently interpreted as the protest turning violent.
Now that we have a better look at Jocelyne here, it reminds me that a few strips ago when all we had to go off of was the picture from Joyce’s dad, some commenters were curious whether Jocelyne was dressing masc or femme. And honestly? Her jacket is on par with Joyce and Dorothy. It doesn’t look overtly feminine, nor masculine. She’s got denim pants like Joyce and Dorothy. A purple shirt might come off as more femme but purple isn’t a “girls only” color. Gender and clothes is always silly. In the end, I think Jocelyne looks lovely in purple and brown. Very classy.
Yeah, I wonder what Jocelyne thinks her dad knows. It’s possible that aside from clothes, Jocelyne looks visibly more feminine in-universe– longer hair, yes, and possibly also some changes from E that would be harder to convey in this comic style. So it might be that Hank could think something was up from her appearance, but subtle changes like that are often overlooked, especially by people not familiar with trans topics.
(Trans people who are or have been on HTR, feel free to jump in with how long it took family members to notice if you didn’t tell them.)
Anyway, Joyce’s message last strip wasn’t that clear about was said to her either, so Jocelyne could be thinking he sad something beyond what he did.
Thinking about it, it’s entirely possible he’s more concerned with the politics of the protest Jocelyne is at considering their parents definitely raised them to be christian conservatives and this is definitely a leftist protest
He’s improved but I doubt he’s completely realigned his political views
While I’m technically “closeted”, it’s really more of a DADT situation for the most part. My dad lives out of state, so I only see him 4-8 times a year anyways when he flies in to visit his parents (actually now that I think of it, that’s how often I see my mom and stepdad too, despite living 15 min away, since I spend major holidays with my wife’s family instead). I had grown a fairly noticeable rack by year 3, and that’s when he asked me flat out if I was transgender. (Not that it was out of the blue, he’d been making jokes about all the gender whatever’s I’ve been sharing on Facebook for years). He needed some time to process, only cried a little bit, but ultimately he was way more devastated when I told him my wife and I don’t plan to have children. Now that he’s nearing retirement, his biggest regret is not having more children of his own – I’m his only one. He’d also never admit it out loud, which is correct, but it’s obvious he regrets the divorce from my mom as well. He only remarried a couple years ago, but he’s been with his now-wife for like 2 decades together. And he has been thrilled to help raise the baby since his stepdaughter and her husband are super busy with work. Maybe that’s a cultural thing since I too was raised primarily by my grandparents.
Nobody else has made any comments about it, at least not in my presence. My mom knew from the get go when she opened some insurance thing that had been sent to her place and called me to ask why I was on menopause medicine, but we haven’t talked about it at all in the 6 years since I’ve begun taking HRT.
When my nephew started coming out as trans as a late teen, my four siblings are all calling me going “don’t tell Mom and Dad! It would kill them!” (n.b. said nephew lived with and was mostly raised by Mom and Dad). Took years before they were told (which was a total non-problem).
Like a decade later, I mentioned this to them and they commented “well, of course we knew all along. But we didn’t want to worry your siblings so we didn’t say anything.”
From a legal theory standpoint, while people do have a right to peaceably assemble, there can be some limitations on time, place, and manner. For example, pro-lifers can assemble outside of a Planned Parenthood to protest, but are not allowed to block public access and must stay off of PP’s private property. In this case of this protest, it involves an encampment in Dunn Woods, which is against IU’s rules about what can be done on its property. The fact that this rule change got implemented JUST NOW for the sole purpose of shutting down THIS PROTEST doesn’t change that it’s completely constitutional. (Disclaimer: It probably does.)
In practice, the only rights we have are the ones that we successfully fight for, or that people let us have without forcing us to fight for them. (Disclaimer: I’m counting non-violent protest as a form of fighting for the purposes of this sentiment.) If both sides are made up of decent people that fight can happen in a courtroom or the court of public opinion, but if not? A quarter-millennium-old piece of paper with words on it has never once stopped a police baton.
Like you say, the legal theory is complicated. Fundamentally the legal theory makes sense: The right to protest can’t be completely unlimited – simply saying “I’m protesting” can’t override all other laws and regulations.
In theory, such limits have to be content neutral: the government can you need a permit like any other large assembly and that you can’t block traffic or whatever, but they can’t grant such permits only to right wing protests and deny left ones. In practice? Well some groups definitely get treated more lightly.
In theory we have those rights, but in practice it’s always been the case that the wealthy and powerful in this country can do whatever they want, including sending the cops to arrest protesters.
this is the point of social conservatism: to see to it that there are in-groups who are protected by the law but not bound to it, alongside out-groups who are bound to the law but not protected by it
Kyulen
I see it as more the rich vs the poor, capitalist class vs working class, etc.
I mean private ownership is itself a part of law / social contract, no?
money and the rules which govern how it works (and arguably the illusions which tend to surround it) also fall under this category
Freemage
Those are one of the in-group/out-group pairings, but there’s more. Divisions by race and by sex are the two oldest, and grafted firmly to the wealth division. The ultimate form of a property have-not is to be property yourself, after all, so if you can make the out-group into property, you can retain all that they would otherwise own for yourself. Enslaving ethnic outsiders or functionally enslaving women, is simply the most efficient means of maintaining their economic dominance.
This storyline is primarily a metaphor for anti-Israel protests at Columbia last year. In that case what happened was that the university itself called the cops because the protests were on their property.
Police can also call an unlawful assembly if the protests have “mutual intent of deliberate disturbance of the peace” which is what happened to the LA anti-ICE protests of a few months ago, because the whole point of them was disrupting ICE activity directly (specifically by blocking access to federal buildings).
In contrast to both, the No Kings anti-Trump protests in June were on public property and mostly were people standing around with signs, which is why the police basically ignored them all even though they were much bigger.
Per Dorothy’s line in panel 3, apparently the state of Indiana outlawed this protest specifically this morning, which doesn’t have any real-life precedent that I’m aware of, though it’s entirely possible I’m just not getting the reference.
306 thoughts on “Riot police”
NGPZ
yeah yeah yeah ya figured it out Dorothy
fuck the system, trust in your VALUES
now hahaha HURRY UP AND GET THE FUCK OUTTA DODGE!!! D:<
*plays “Be Quick or Be Dead” by Iron Maiden on hacked muzak*
True Survivor
That is a nuts album cover.
Embe13
that is Iron Maiden!
Dsr667
It’s just iron maiden being iron maiden 🙂
Animedingo
GO HAVE THOSE AT YALE
Nymph
Try not to have any epiphanies on the way through the parking lot.
Rose by Any other Name
… didn’t the police already close off any ability to leave with that fence that closed behind them earlier? How is anyone supposed to disperse with that in the way?
(Or was that put up by the protesters to stop the police from approaching?)
Taffy
It’s a flimsy-looking chain link fence, and it didn’t even seem to have any supports. My son could defeat it easily.
Nymph
RELEASE TAFFY’S SON! ALLOW HIM TO BULLDOZE THE SHACKLES OF OUR OPPRESSORS!
Clif
HEAR, HEAR!!
Tequila Mockingbird
Permission to request Liam Neeson (or someone who can do a really good Liam Neeson impression because I ain’t made of money) read this out loud with all the melodramatic bravado of the one scene anyone remembers from the Clash of the Titans remake.
misabiko
While I don’t disagree, based on their pfp I can’t help to think that to Taffy’s son, anything is flimsy-looking and could be defeated easily.
nightlingbug
the police did it! it’s a technique called “kettling”; they block off protestors’ ability to disperse and then arrest them for not dispersing (while teargassing/trampling them in the process)
Taffy
Yeah, the answer to “how are they supposed to disperse” is unfortunately “They’re not.”
It’s really fucked up.
Needfuldoer
At least it’s winter, so there shouldn’t be any acorns falling on the patrol cars.
Taffy
Buncha chickenshit losers, cops.
Proxiehunter
They aren’t supposed to leave. They’re supposed to get arrested because they disobeyed the order to leave. The fact that the pigs made it physically imposible for them to leave is irrelevent, they gave an order and it wasn’t obeyed.
See also situations where two police are present and each gives a different order where it’s impossible to obey both.
Smallmoon
The really fucked thing? That’s SOP because ‘giving conflicting orders confuses the suspect, making it harder for them to come up with a lie on the spot and/or think about attacking the officers’ This ALSO “justifies” the use of lethal force if a weapon is in the ‘suspect’s’ hand, because now they’re armed and disobedient.
deliverything
I couldn’t help noticing that, despite your judicious use of quotation marks, you omitted the ones around ‘weapon’. Curiously, the definition of this word often seems to vary based on the person holding the object in question…
Proxiehunter
Or not holding in the case of teenagers armed with the pavement.
Arianod
It’s a Catch 22 scenario: they make it impossible for people to disperse, then order them to disperse. In a police state, you can get away with doing stuff like that.
thejeff
Most likely, it’s set up to control access. It prevents more people from coming in to support the protest, but still has a gate or other controlled spot to let people leave.
Once the time limit’s up and the cops do move in to arrest everyone who refused to leave, it also serves to keep them from scattering when the tear gas is used.
Proxiehunter
That’s not how kettling works.
thejeff
We’ll see what happens, though even that just depends on Willis’s understanding of what’s likely and of course on what works for the story.
Blakey
It is absolutely textbook standard for the dogs to prevent protestors from leaving in this scenario. The order to disperse isn’t for obeying, it’s for pressing charges later.
thejeff
Rarely at these early stages in the protest though. After a couple of attempts to clear the area, sure. Or after a couple nights of confrontations, absolutely.
Very rarely as the first move.
And both Jocelyne and Leslie seem to think Joyce and Dorothy can still get out, despite expecting to be arrested themselves.
Michelle J Caboose
… At one time?
Orange Lantern
it weren’t that many …
jeffepp
Cop it, it’s the cheese!
Rose by Any other Name
No no, that’s the other universe.
Laura
Who cut the cheese?
Steamweed
Why does seeing cops cause an appetite for cheese-flavored crackers?
(thought it was supposed to be donuts, really…)
cbwroses
No no, Being a cop causes an appetite for donuts.
Seeing a cop is the cheese flavored crackers.
And if you’re a cop who sees another cop, you crave super donuts, which were a thing in American public school lunches where you’d place a slice of American cheese on top of the generic lunch donut and eat the combo (not a thing found in all areas).
Thag Simmons
Surprised they’ve got that much time.
Lumino
I mean, if these are real world cops they would start firing before the guy put the megaphone down.
RassilonTDavros
You think the cops are actually gonna wait that long?
Thag Simmons
Wouldn’t bet on it
Reltzik
This isn’t an active-shooter situation in a school, so no, why would they wait?
Taffy
Yeah, what is this, a real threat to people’s real lives? Cops aren’t for those, they’re there for stopping harmless things, like a peaceful protest where nobody’s armed, or a Black person trying to watch TV in their apartment after 7pm.
Tequila Mockingbird
Ah… laughing while crying bitterly. What was once such a rare emotion seems to now be a nearly daily occurrence.
RonF
Laws giving the power to police to declare an unlawful assembly contain a time period between the declaration and the point at which they can make arrests in order to give people time to disperse. That goes all the way back to the U.K. Riot Act of 1715, which once read out gave people 1 hour to disperse before arrest.
Taffy
Is that where the saying comes from?
Blakey
Yes. If it was determined that an assembly was unlawful (ie, people were trying to express any kind of solidarity or to resist an injustice), an officer would literally read out the “riot act”, which was the actual action required to make the assembly unlawful. The text to be read out runs:
“Our sovereign lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the act made in the first year of King George, for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God save the King.”
Apparently more than one conviction was overturned because the officer failed to read out part of the text, especially the final sentence.
deliverything
Just cynically speculating here, but… if they are indeed sealed in, as suggested by other commenters, a delay gives the protestors time to find out there’s no exit, panic, and maybe resort to desperate measures which can be conveniently interpreted as the protest turning violent.
Taffy
Cool, listen to the queer who lives in her own and is willing to get arrested, and get the fuck outta there.
yak
Better yet, hang around and go pick her up from jail later. While filming, of course.
yak
*hang around outside the protest, to be specific
maxh
30 minutes of warning seems like more than usual.
Kevin K
Did we say minutes? We meant seconds
Taffy
And those 30 seconds started about 25 seconds before the announcement.
Reltzik
Also, they’re supposed to make the warning too quiet to be audible to the bulk of the protestors. Didn’t they learn anything from Lafayette Square?
Taffy
One cop, whispering behind its hands, right next to a blaring siren. That counts as a warning, right?
Charles Phipps
Dorothy, I think you may have needed Robin and these events to be in politics.
It seems your knowledge of it was….limited.
Doopyboop
Now that we have a better look at Jocelyne here, it reminds me that a few strips ago when all we had to go off of was the picture from Joyce’s dad, some commenters were curious whether Jocelyne was dressing masc or femme. And honestly? Her jacket is on par with Joyce and Dorothy. It doesn’t look overtly feminine, nor masculine. She’s got denim pants like Joyce and Dorothy. A purple shirt might come off as more femme but purple isn’t a “girls only” color. Gender and clothes is always silly. In the end, I think Jocelyne looks lovely in purple and brown. Very classy.
Yumi
Yeah, I wonder what Jocelyne thinks her dad knows. It’s possible that aside from clothes, Jocelyne looks visibly more feminine in-universe– longer hair, yes, and possibly also some changes from E that would be harder to convey in this comic style. So it might be that Hank could think something was up from her appearance, but subtle changes like that are often overlooked, especially by people not familiar with trans topics.
(Trans people who are or have been on HTR, feel free to jump in with how long it took family members to notice if you didn’t tell them.)
Anyway, Joyce’s message last strip wasn’t that clear about was said to her either, so Jocelyne could be thinking he sad something beyond what he did.
Alongcameaspider
Thinking about it, it’s entirely possible he’s more concerned with the politics of the protest Jocelyne is at considering their parents definitely raised them to be christian conservatives and this is definitely a leftist protest
He’s improved but I doubt he’s completely realigned his political views
Amara
While I’m technically “closeted”, it’s really more of a DADT situation for the most part. My dad lives out of state, so I only see him 4-8 times a year anyways when he flies in to visit his parents (actually now that I think of it, that’s how often I see my mom and stepdad too, despite living 15 min away, since I spend major holidays with my wife’s family instead). I had grown a fairly noticeable rack by year 3, and that’s when he asked me flat out if I was transgender. (Not that it was out of the blue, he’d been making jokes about all the gender whatever’s I’ve been sharing on Facebook for years). He needed some time to process, only cried a little bit, but ultimately he was way more devastated when I told him my wife and I don’t plan to have children. Now that he’s nearing retirement, his biggest regret is not having more children of his own – I’m his only one. He’d also never admit it out loud, which is correct, but it’s obvious he regrets the divorce from my mom as well. He only remarried a couple years ago, but he’s been with his now-wife for like 2 decades together. And he has been thrilled to help raise the baby since his stepdaughter and her husband are super busy with work. Maybe that’s a cultural thing since I too was raised primarily by my grandparents.
Nobody else has made any comments about it, at least not in my presence. My mom knew from the get go when she opened some insurance thing that had been sent to her place and called me to ask why I was on menopause medicine, but we haven’t talked about it at all in the 6 years since I’ve begun taking HRT.
Jon
When my nephew started coming out as trans as a late teen, my four siblings are all calling me going “don’t tell Mom and Dad! It would kill them!” (n.b. said nephew lived with and was mostly raised by Mom and Dad). Took years before they were told (which was a total non-problem).
Like a decade later, I mentioned this to them and they commented “well, of course we knew all along. But we didn’t want to worry your siblings so we didn’t say anything.”
Amós Batista
Wait: no right to assembly? Is that what I read??
NGPZ
that’s how it really do go down in the United States, the One And Only Land of God, Guns and Freedom™ (9-9)
Laura
Or, as Georgia Republican gubernatorial candidate Kandiss Taylor boasted: “I believe in Jesus, guns, and babies.”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0ws5V6jpDus
NGPZ
Is that the same one who claimed that over 6 BILLION people crossed the southern border “illegally” ? (-_-)
(for reals I’ve had to stop paying attention to the news, I can’t help nobody if I lose my mind)
Dr. T
Well, that is what the law they passed says. It doesn’t matter if it’s unconstitutional. That was something that stopped mattering years ago.
Reltzik
From a legal theory standpoint, while people do have a right to peaceably assemble, there can be some limitations on time, place, and manner. For example, pro-lifers can assemble outside of a Planned Parenthood to protest, but are not allowed to block public access and must stay off of PP’s private property. In this case of this protest, it involves an encampment in Dunn Woods, which is against IU’s rules about what can be done on its property. The fact that this rule change got implemented JUST NOW for the sole purpose of shutting down THIS PROTEST doesn’t change that it’s completely constitutional. (Disclaimer: It probably does.)
In practice, the only rights we have are the ones that we successfully fight for, or that people let us have without forcing us to fight for them. (Disclaimer: I’m counting non-violent protest as a form of fighting for the purposes of this sentiment.) If both sides are made up of decent people that fight can happen in a courtroom or the court of public opinion, but if not? A quarter-millennium-old piece of paper with words on it has never once stopped a police baton.
thejeff
Like you say, the legal theory is complicated. Fundamentally the legal theory makes sense: The right to protest can’t be completely unlimited – simply saying “I’m protesting” can’t override all other laws and regulations.
In theory, such limits have to be content neutral: the government can you need a permit like any other large assembly and that you can’t block traffic or whatever, but they can’t grant such permits only to right wing protests and deny left ones. In practice? Well some groups definitely get treated more lightly.
Kyulen
In theory we have those rights, but in practice it’s always been the case that the wealthy and powerful in this country can do whatever they want, including sending the cops to arrest protesters.
NGPZ
this is the point of social conservatism: to see to it that there are in-groups who are protected by the law but not bound to it, alongside out-groups who are bound to the law but not protected by it
Kyulen
I see it as more the rich vs the poor, capitalist class vs working class, etc.
NGPZ
I mean private ownership is itself a part of law / social contract, no?
money and the rules which govern how it works (and arguably the illusions which tend to surround it) also fall under this category
Freemage
Those are one of the in-group/out-group pairings, but there’s more. Divisions by race and by sex are the two oldest, and grafted firmly to the wealth division. The ultimate form of a property have-not is to be property yourself, after all, so if you can make the out-group into property, you can retain all that they would otherwise own for yourself. Enslaving ethnic outsiders or functionally enslaving women, is simply the most efficient means of maintaining their economic dominance.
ESM
This storyline is primarily a metaphor for anti-Israel protests at Columbia last year. In that case what happened was that the university itself called the cops because the protests were on their property.
Police can also call an unlawful assembly if the protests have “mutual intent of deliberate disturbance of the peace” which is what happened to the LA anti-ICE protests of a few months ago, because the whole point of them was disrupting ICE activity directly (specifically by blocking access to federal buildings).
In contrast to both, the No Kings anti-Trump protests in June were on public property and mostly were people standing around with signs, which is why the police basically ignored them all even though they were much bigger.
Per Dorothy’s line in panel 3, apparently the state of Indiana outlawed this protest specifically this morning, which doesn’t have any real-life precedent that I’m aware of, though it’s entirely possible I’m just not getting the reference.
ESM