Court: Injured officer can sue Black Lives Matter organizer

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press


Updated 4:03 pm CDT, Friday, April 26, 2019

BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) — A Louisiana police officer injured during protests over the 2016 killing of a black man can sue a Black Lives Matter organizer on the grounds he acted negligently by leading people to block a highway, a federal appeals court has ruled.

The Baton Rouge officer, identified only as John Doe in court records, had sued DeRay Mckesson and others who gathered as part of the Black Lives Matter movement after police fatally shot Alton Sterling, The Advocate reported. A federal judge threw out the lawsuit in 2017, citing First Amendment rights and noting Black Lives Matter was too loosely organized to sue.

But the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that the officer should be able to argue that Mckesson, a prominent Baltimore activist, didn't exercise reasonable care in leading protesters onto the highway, setting up a police confrontation in which the officer was injured by a thrown concrete block.

. . .

Circuit Judge E. Grady Jolly, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, said, "Mckesson should have known that leading the demonstrators onto a busy highway was most nearly certain to provoke a confrontation between police and the mass of demonstrators, yet he ignored the foreseeable danger to officers, bystanders, and demonstrators, and notwithstanding, did so anyway."

Read more: https://www.chron.com/news/crime/article/Court-Injured-officer-can-sue-Black-Lives-Matter-13798793.php

[certainot]

1. this is the kind of event where limbaugh gives it time to attack mckesson and BLM. which

is what he's done since he spent a lot of time calling mike brown a thug and excusing his murder and attacking fergusson protestors and BLM. that will add to the attacks from the local louisiana radio blowhards, pollute any jury pools, and intimidate judges

in louisiana, LSU 2, La.-Monroe 1 support 3 limbaugh stations by broadcasting sports on them and they have no excuse not to start looking for apolitical aternatives

all of those stations have followed limbaugh in attacking BLM for years and those universities, like 86 others around the country supporting 260 or so limbaugh stations, need to be protested

[Honeycombe8]

2. Good. Protest, yes. Protest in such a way or in such a location that puts people in danger,no.

I doubt the police officer is successful, but he should have the right to make his case.

[KeepItReal]

3. You're agreeing with Republican judges who are rewriting how protests are dealt with

GOP judges launch bizarre attack on Black Lives Matter and the First Amendment

https://thinkprogress.org/gop-judges-bizarre-case-black-lives-matter-deray-mckesson-c5f05ea377ca/

An opinion handed down Wednesday by three Republican judges could chill the First Amendment rights of protesters — and potentially allow police to shut down political movements by filing lawsuits harassing movement leaders.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Doe v. McKesson effectively strips First Amendment protections from protest leaders who commit minor offenses, ignoring longstanding Supreme Court precedents in the process.

The “Doe” in Doe v. McKesson is an anonymous police officer who was allegedly injured by an unknown protester who is not DeRay McKesson. McKesson is a prominent racial justice advocate closely associated with the Black Lives Matter movement who, according to Doe’s complaint, helped organize a protest near the Baton Rouge Police Department building.
...

One glaring problem with Doe’s lawsuit is the First Amendment, which protects the right to join together in political associations. As the Supreme Court explained in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, “civil liability may not be imposed merely because an individual belonged to a group, some members of which committed acts of violence.” Instead, Claiborne lays out three instances where a peaceful participant in a protest could be liable for the violent actions of someone else.

[Honeycombe8]

4. No, I'm not. That case has nothing to do with dangerous locations of protests.

This applies to any protest group.

A person knows that law enforcement has to "handle" protests, esp if large or rowdy. To choose to do that in a location that the person knows puts the officers or other employees at risk should at least be allowed to litigated or heard before a court. Doesn't mean that the injured person would win.

Whether it's a harassment lawsuit...a court would decide that. But one thing that lends the argument that it's not is that: an officer was injured because of the location.

This applies to any protest group. It doesn't rule that the protest groups are ipso facto liable. It just means that the person who was injured has the right for a Court to hear the case.

[moriah]

6. Um, okay, so should everyone who laid down in the streets in the Iraq War protest...

... have been sued because it made people late to work? I mean, that's a lot more likely "damage" to occur from a decision by a protest leader to move a protest from an area into the street, not bricks thrown.

Or the leaders who decided that was the best way to make their point -- that people were laying in the streets dead in other areas because of our actions?

VS just arrested like they were for the illegal actions they did take?

------

And do you honestly agree with their assertion that merely holding an unpermitted assembly (because with a permit, yes, in Louisiana you can block a street) is grounds to sue an organizer for any violent actions taken by rogue participants?

I'm from the old-school crowd of protesters -- lay down and passively resist if you are gonna decide to add "resisting arrest" to your charges, not throwing bricks. And a leader can say that to his entire group, yet someone still decide to go rogue.

I still would like to look more closely at the full circumstances of how this protest was organized and went down, because yes, organizers do need to be careful. But especially with the rise of non-LE "false flag "agitators in protest movements, holding organizers accountable for the actions of people who show up to a protest, if the only thing they did that was in violation of the law was moving a location to an unpermitted spot -- yes, I have an issue with that.

I've sat outside of 1PP handing out cigarettes and "You're Out But You're Not Done -- Resources After Arrest" after an illegal mass arrest that the NYPD lost/settled a lawsuit on. In NY, permits are not required if you are protesting on the opposite side of the street of the business in question, and do not block more than half of the sidewalk. About 10 people planned to do a non-violent direct action -- sit arm-in-arm in front of the actual business, and were expecting to get arrested. And go quietly.

Between 60-80 others showed up to support them, and stayed within legal limits of where they were supposed to be. The police rounded up everyone involved and arrested them, including a 70-year-old woman whose attorney was out there with the rest of us who were late/volunteering as Green Hats who managed to escape the roundup for the National Lawyer's Guild.

Even back then, we knew "moles" or "plants" would watch our discussion forums. We weren't sure if they were involved with the law or not, but we knew they existed because they'd occasionally suggest something violent or beyond the realms of what our affinity group was comfortable with, and get banned.

And no matter how hard an organizer tries to keep agitators, whether with good intent but just a little too intense for what you want to do, or the people now who are on the alt-right who, for example, attempted to infiltrate the Women's March....

Giving organizers civil liability for actions that are not always foreseeable is a BAD idea. I mean, unless you're saying what the court is -- that it is impossible for police to manage to arrest a group of people without them getting violent. Nobody resisted more than passively in any arrest I witnessed in NY.

[atreides1]

11. "...an officer was injured because of the location."

So what...it's one of the many risks that comes with the job!

When it comes to cops, who get away with shooting people, mainly because of federal court rulings in the past...I'm not all that sympathetic when they bitch about getting hurt on duty!!!

I only hope that the judge that hears this case, has the sense to decide that this is nothing more then a frivolous lawsuit by a cop looking for a big payday!!!

[Honeycombe8]

12. That's all the guy is asking for.

Protests are legal, like free speech. But there are limitations.

[moriah]

5. What's more disturbing is the well-known and long-standing issue of "plants"...

.... in protests.

Especially since lawsuits during the 9/11/the Iraq war protest movement, as protests have shifted and the alt-right has risen, the "plants" are not law enforcement informants anymore -- but instead are private citizens who go into protests to incite violence.

Holding protest leaders accountable simply because they direct their group to engage in "non-violent direct action" -- aka, an illegal act that does not specifically involve violence -- and another person in the group decides to engage in violence will have a chilling effect.

As it stands, I still recommend that protest organizers play defense, hard.

1) Know the law and do not break it unless you have trained your group in "jail solidarity". Mass arrests have taken place when people have broken even the simplest of local laws regarding how protests may be conducted -- see April 7, 2003, NYC and the lawsuit that took place there. There was a non-violent direct action planned -- by 10 people.

The entire group of people there obeying the law but supporting their efforts were arrested, and even if the city settled the lawsuit it sucked for those people who didn't break the law to get rounded up with everyone else. The 10 who knew they'd be arrested had already had jail solidarity training.

2) Do not take the verbal word from an official about whether or not a permit is necessary for a protest such as a march that will use a public street, noise use, signs that have sticks, or anything else that could potentially create a disturbance. Either record the conversation where they say you don't need a permit if your state allows you to record in-person or phone conversations you are a party to, or get it in writing.

A guy at a local college wanted to arrange a BLM protest, and I was happy to go, but I asked about a permit since it was gonna be a march that he said would go down a specific route of streets. He said "Oh yeah, the guy at city hall said it was fine." I recommended he double-check, and sure enough, the guy was attempting to set him up to get the entire group arrested.

3) Especially if your group EVER engages in "non-violent direct action" -- aka deliberately disobeys any law -- be EXTREMELY careful who you let in the group. If people start talking violence, destruction of random property, etc, they don't need to be part of your group. Shut all such talk down immediately.

It's not cops anymore who are instigating these types of activities to get people stripped of their First Amendment rights, but individual actors who disagree with your movement doing it on their own without bribery or coercion from LE. And that makes them doubly dangerous.

[dalton99a]

7. +1

[Nitram]

9. I disagree, Honeycombe. BLM should not be held responsible for a rogue individual's action.

[Honeycombe8]

10. Maybe the trial court will find that. But the appeal is about whether he has rt to sue the organizr.

The appellate court said:

Circuit Judge E. Grady Jolly, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, said, "Mckesson should have known that leading the demonstrators onto a busy highway was most nearly certain to provoke a confrontation between police and the mass of demonstrators, yet he ignored the foreseeable danger to officers, bystanders, and demonstrators, and notwithstanding, did so anyway."

"Our ruling at this point is not to say that a finding of liability will ultimately be appropriate," Jolly wrote. "We are simply required to decide whether Officer Doe's claim for relief is sufficiently plausible."

The trial court had ruled that the group as a whole could not be held accountable, because it was more like a social group.

When the group blocked a highway, that's illegal and interferes with the rights of others, so police have to try to clear the highway. The officer was hit with a concrete block during the confrontation.

I remember during the Vietnam War that protesters would lie down at entrances to buildings, blocking entrance, The protests were peaceful. The officers or Nat'l Guard would pick them up and move them out of the way. It'll illegal to interfere with the rights of others, even if it is a constitutional right to protest. But on a highway is much more dangerous, and puts a lot of people at risk. And it was confrontational, not peaceful.

The case may be thrown out at the trial level. He's just asking for the ability to see if it stands up in a trial court.

[Nitram]

13. There is a difference between peaceful and non-violent protest, and a murder.

Holding BLM responsible for a rogue outsider is the same as holding all police responsible for one "rogue" policeman.

[Jedi Guy]

14. Isn't that what people here on DU do every time there's an officer-involved shooting?

I understand the distinction between legal responsibility and people commenting on a message board, but still, it seems to me that they're holding every cop morally responsible, somehow. Every single time there's a thread about a cop doing something wrong, it's tons of responses with "all cops are like this" as the basic commentary. There's one poster who replies, "Cops. This is who they are. This is what they do." just about every time.

It's the same flawed thinking displayed by bigots who think all African-Americans are criminals, or all Muslims are terrorists. One member of X group does Y, so all members of that group are equally awful. If that thought process is wrong when it's applied to racial/religious groups, it's equally wrong when applied to other groups.

[Humanist_Activist]

16. Police officer is an occupation, but more than that, they are an organization...

or I should say many different organizations, but they seem to foster of culture of otherness that encourages their members to be disproportionately violent towards "outsiders", and to cover for their own members. This reputation varies by jurisdiction, but seems relatively universal.

[Jedi Guy]

19. That's almost word for word what the bigots say about African-Americans.

"It's not their race that's the problem, it's their culture of violence." It's a hollow justification to apply a broad brush to a group of people.

The point I'm making is that taking the actions of individual members of a group and extrapolating those actions, or responsibility for those actions, to all members of the group is flawed thinking. It's the exact same thought process that underpins racism. All members of X are/do Y. It's absurd, but it happens just about every damn time.

When a white suspect is arrested, the comments are "Well, we know how that would've ended if he/she were black!" In a country of 330+ million people, there are plenty of arrests of minorities (some of them armed) every single day where no one is killed or injured.

I just find it perplexing that the very same flawed thinking manifests in a group that prides itself on being rational, unlike its ideological opposite number.

[Humanist_Activist]

21. Races don't have organizations like police unions or departments that provide cover....

For their crimes when they are committed. Or even worse a public that gives them the benefit of the doubt to the extent that its almost impossible to prosecute police 9fficer as for their misconduct, even when they murder.

[Jedi Guy]

23. Okay, so you're just going to harp on that one thing?

That police officers aren't a racial group? I realize that this is the case. The comparison to racial groups regarding broad brush thinking and why it's flawed is still valid.

[Humanist_Activist]

24. You are the one who made the comparison, it breaks down due to the things I mentioned.

You can broad brush organizations and their members depending on the overall conduct of those organizations. We do that for republicans all the time, do we not? Why would, for.example, the NYPD be any different?

[Jedi Guy]

25. I don't agree with broad brush thinking at all. That's kind of the point I'm making here.

You may be able to make generalizations regarding things like beliefs when it comes to political parties, because that's the point of political parties. People who have roughly the same beliefs group together. It would be fair to say "Democrats support a woman's right to choose." Not all Democrats do, but an overwhelming majority do. Same for religions. It'd be fair to say, "All Christians believe Jesus Christ died for their sins." There may be a few wonky groups that call themselves Christians but don't believe that, but the overwhelming majority do.

That kind of thinking breaks down when you start talking about actions, particularly negative ones. It is, I will once again point out, the foundation upon which racists build their bullshit. Someone of X group committed a crime, therefore all people of X group are criminals. Some cops have wrongfully killed innocent people, therefore all cops are murderers or murderers-in-waiting. The fact that cops aren't a racial group doesn't change the fact that that sort of thinking is wrongheaded, absurd, and not the least bit rational.

[Nitram]

28. The police are a close-knit group with their own culture of unwritten rules. They have the support

of their fellow officers, the courts, and many individuals in juries who always side with the police. The same cannot be said of any ethic group. Have you heard of "institutional racism?" If not, I'd suggest you read up on it . It is a real thing.

[Jedi Guy]

29. None of which is the least bit relevant to the point I'm making about broad-brush thinking. N/T

[Nitram]

31. Jedi Guy, maybe it is relevant. If a pattern is strong enough to be perceived over the

background noise, it may be s strong indication that it is a widespread phenomenon that needs to be addressed ASAP. Perhaps it is not a few bad apples or rogue officers. Perhaps it is an entire institution that needs to reform at a very basic level. If that is broadbrushed thinking then bring it on!

[Nitram]

27. No they do not. There has been a clear pattern of abuse of power by individual cops and

Last edited Sun May 5, 2019, 11:02 AM - Edit history (1)

a cover up by their department. We're talking nationwide. What will it take for you to realize that rogue cops always say they thought the guy was a reaching for a weapon, and then their partners always cover up for them. Only when a video proves they are all lying is anybody charged. An even then a jury often finds them innocent.

[Jedi Guy]

30. None of which is the least bit relevant to the point I'm making about broad-brush thinking. N/T

[Nitram]

32. I'll give you points for repetition, tenacity, and consistency. But none for being open-minded to

an argument you seem to have decided was wrong before you even heard it. Maybe you are using too narrow a brush to fill in the spaces in your understanding of a serious national issue.

[Sgent]

18. BLM is not being held

responsible, the circuit court agreed that you can't sue "BLM". However, the circuit court said you could sue the leader from Baltimore.

[Humanist_Activist]

15. How are you to determine this? Main roads have long been a place for protest.

Should MLK Jr. have been liable for injuries sustained during the March in Selma, or many of the other numerous Civil Rights marches, protests and rallies?

[Nitram]

8. If he can sue BLM, then BLM should be able to sue the police force for each murder of an unarmed

black person.

[Sgent]

17. The Circuit

upheld the District court that BLM could not be sued. It said the specific named leader could be.

[Humanist_Activist]

22. Well individual police officers should be sued for their own misconduct, thats only fair, right? Nt

[crazytown]

20. Should have sued MLK for Selma

“MLK should have known that leading the demonstrators onto the bridge was most nearly certain to provoke a confrontation between police and the mass of demonstrators, yet he ignored the foreseeable danger to officers, bystanders, and demonstrators, and notwithstanding, did so anyway."

[Mc Mike]

26. That precedent should be bad for Rump and his white rights fans.

Last edited Fri May 3, 2019, 09:22 AM - Edit history (1)

Same thing with the tRump repugs telling health workers they should feel free to break the law, if their religious views tell them to do so. If the repugs outlaw Roe v. Wade, the precedent has been set, by the repugs, for all Pro Roe people to break the law.