Musician arrested after officer reads law allowing him to play in subway legally.

a reply to: Domo1

Well if what you say is true, (I won't argue thats how it appeared to me) and if it takes two cops to arrest a "hippie" then they need new standards for cops then. The guy was wearing pink socks for pete sakes!

The horror, the horror.

a reply to: rockpaperhammock

No it doesn't. Are you just being obtuse on purpose? Nowhere does it say that a permit is required. It says permitted by the Transit Authority. Given the way ordinances are written (by attorneys) it would REQUIRE specific language specifying the need for a permit and the process by which one obtains same. Sheesh.

originally posted by: schadenfreude
a reply to: rockpaperhammock

How is it bs that he was arrested b/c ppl were clapping when the cop was leaving UNTIL ppl started clapping & hollering?

Did we watch the same video?

Its egotripping, plain & simple.

This is from your comment...your comment...you typed this..."If you watch the video the cop doesn't even bother to arrest the guy (and even says he isn't) UNTIL ppl start clapping & being happy"

You right there are saying he wasn't going to arrest until that...at 2:16 he says "get your stuff you're leaving" and the man replies no I am not...he calls for another unit shortly after...when you call for another unit you are going to physically remove him or make an arrest. That cop had made up his mind and arrest was occurring at that point. In fact he immediately initiates the arrest the second the uniformed and plane clothes officer show up.

a reply to: schadenfreude

In a situation like that with a crowd I think the cop made the right call. That could have gotten ugly fast. I don't think the cop was worried he wouldn't be able to arrest the guy.

a reply to: Domo1

The cop was worried the citizens would stand up for the performer. That's why he called in his fellow gang members.

originally posted by: schadenfreude
a reply to: Domo1

Well if what you say is true, (I won't argue thats how it appeared to me) and if it takes two cops to arrest a "hippie" then they need new standards for cops then. The guy was wearing pink socks for pete sakes!

The horror, the horror.

Ok ive had enough...you dont have a #ing clue....so you think every arrest should be 1 on 1? Do you know how dangerous that would be? You are just saying stupid # now. So because he had pink socks you only need one officer? I don't know why I argue with people like you...do something then...do something to fix the problem..make sure to wear you pink socks though so only one officer responds.

originally posted by: rockpaperhammock

originally posted by: schadenfreude
a reply to: rockpaperhammock

How is it bs that he was arrested b/c ppl were clapping when the cop was leaving UNTIL ppl started clapping & hollering?

Did we watch the same video?

Its egotripping, plain & simple.

This is from your comment...your comment...you typed this..."If you watch the video the cop doesn't even bother to arrest the guy (and even says he isn't) UNTIL ppl start clapping & being happy"

You right there are saying he wasn't going to arrest until that...at 2:16 he says "get your stuff you're leaving" and the man replies no I am not...he calls for another unit shortly after...when you call for another unit you are going to physically remove him or make an arrest. That cop had made up his mind and arrest was occurring at that point. In fact he immediately initiates the arrest the second the uniformed and plane clothes officer show up.

I've seen quite a few videos where the cop said one thing & the exact opposite thing happened tyvm. (You can see this happen mostly during open carry stops & a supervisor is called) Cops lie, I don't take their word for anything.

I know what I typed, ty.

originally posted by: jtma508
a reply to: rockpaperhammock

No it doesn't. Are you just being obtuse on purpose? Nowhere does it say that a permit is required. It says permitted by the Transit Authority. Given the way ordinances are written (by attorneys) it would REQUIRE specific language specifying the need for a permit and the process by which one obtains same. Sheesh.

I said it very well may require a permit and if you think it "requires" specific language than you don't have an effing clue about law haha. Go through a law book and see how confusing it is...they use vernacular words...ill give you an example since you will probably ask. Look up searches incident to arrest after an officer arrests someone driving...almost all states say they can search the immediate area of the driver....that is a pretty open statement...the immediate area...does that mean the glove box? Does that mean under the floor covers in the back seat? What about the trunk? Given that ordinances are written by attorneys it is the exact opposite haha...they are the worst at this stuff!

I also said we don't know if the officer felt he was impeding...and also the officer could revoke the authority for any other number reasons. I'm not saying the officer was right in everything but it certainly isn't clear cut why he wanted him to move.

originally posted by: rockpaperhammock
a reply to: schadenfreude

We are arguing two different points...you are saying he is playing legally....I am saying in the statue it specifically says you can't play there ....read the statute you posted...it says no artistic performances.

I don't see how you think he is being assaulted..he is breaking the ordinance which is actually nothing more than a city ordinance...he would have had a city ticket...not even a state arrest. But if the officer tells you to leave and you don't then that is obstructing a peace officer...which is a state charge. That is why he was arrested.

Please convince me with the statute above that he was playing legally....

How about you read some info from the NYPD website. Still no mention of any required permit. Even the links to the MTA site and the site itself don't mention an artistic performance permit.

There are videos that have been posted where I have felt the officer was in the wrong....lets say in theory an officer is wrong...and you know 100% for sure...not just 90%...100% what should the civilian be allowed to do? Im just curious what you think.

You can't tell me with the statute written above that you are 100% sure this guy was playing legally in the subway.

a reply to: jtma508

It very clearly DOES say that you need a permit. You have to keep reading. All of those activities are allowed with a permit or other caveat.

Ok you're right, you're right! Pink socks (w/ no shoes) and Fedora wearing ppl are BADASSES! Steve Austin style.

They were mostly college kids!

Ugly? Situation get ugly fast? Since when?

Come on now, get real.

a reply to: schadenfreude

Well we agree on one thing...cops lie....and if you know what you typed then you know you said the arrest for people clapping lol

a reply to: ChuckNasty

ok lets say you are right...then he was potentially impeding the traffic flow of people...can you say 100% he wasn't?

If so then you must be watching other videos. Listen...I am not for the police....I thought the cop was being decent ...he told the guy to move on and the guy refused...

originally posted by: schadenfreude
Ok you're right, you're right! Pink socks (w/ no shoes) and Fedora wearing ppl are BADASSES! Steve Austin style.

They were mostly college kids!

Ugly? Situation get ugly fast? Since when?

Come on now, get real.

So the fat out of shape cop should be able to single handedly take on the young college kid? Sure we can argue the cop shouldn't be a cop if hes out of shape and id agree with you...but look at the guy...he doesn't look in shape at all...is it possible the "college kid" could push him onto the tracks....or the group of onlookers could join in when the arrest starts? Is is possible that as the cop goes to make an arrest the people watching get involved and try to stop the cop?

a reply to: Domo1

That was for charities...

a reply to: rockpaperhammock

Always dangerous Assuming things about people on the internet that you know nothing about. I have personally filed dozens of legal actions in both State and Federal Courts. I very much know what kind of language is used son. Go outside and build a tree-house or something. You are way over your head here.

a reply to: ChuckNasty

you might be right

No person, unless duly authorized by the Authority, shall engage in any commercial activity upon any facility or conveyance. Commercial activities include (1) the advertising, display, sale, lease, offer for sale or lease, or distribution of food, goods, services or entertainment (including the free distribution of promotional goods or materials); and (2) the solicitation of money or payment for food, goods, services or entertainment. No person shall panhandle or beg upon any facility or conveyance.

a reply to: Domo1

Unless they have a permit? The subways have beggars, performers, people handing out leaflets, etc. For one, Grand Central has violinists, loud drummers (what's the point in sounding like an artillery range and blowing out passengers' ears), etc.

Many subway stations have people asking for money, if not in the actual place but outside the doors. I've never seen a police officer ask a homeless man to move from a station. Especially after he tells people to "f off" because they wlak by him. I'm sure they have but I've never seen it. Same guy sits outside the station and tells everyone to f off, where are the police?

originally posted by: rockpaperhammock
a reply to: ChuckNasty

ok lets say you are right...then he was potentially impeding the traffic flow of people...can you say 100% he wasn't?

If so then you must be watching other videos. Listen...I am not for the police....I thought the cop was being decent ...he told the guy to move on and the guy refused...

That area did seem narrow. The cop stating that a permit was required is the reasons for my side of this discussion. If the cop would have stated that the performer was a traffic flow problem, I'd side with the cop. From my perspective, the cop was abusing his authority and being a bully.

originally posted by: jtma508
a reply to: rockpaperhammock

Always dangerous Assuming things about people on the internet that you know nothing about. I have personally filed dozens of legal actions in both State and Federal Courts. I very much know what kind of language is used son. Go outside and build a tree-house or something. You are way over your head here.

What a condescending post....through the safety of the internet as well...was the example I just gave not proof that the legal wording can be confusing? Yet you ignore the example I gave then try to talk me down about what you may or may not have done in your real life. Then call me son? Tell me to build a treehouse? Lol what joke...tough guy from afar because I disagree with you...would love to see how you interact in real life with people...cause i could see a treehouse being built from your bones in the near future if you talk like that to everyone.