zlacker

>>void_n+(OP)
Isn't this situational irony ? reporters covering the events that were a result of unreasonable police actions themselves were subject to the unreasonable actions of the police.

>>masked+D4
I wouldn't call it unreasonable. They were told to clear the streets. They didn't actually clear the street. They stayed on the street. Reporters not following directions.

>>spoile+15
Instructions from some random cop are not laws

>>tehweb+n6
In my state, one must comply with any order from a police officer who is in uniform and acting in the performance of his or her duties. This is a law with criminal consequences.

>>sowbug+Hg
I don't know which state you're in, but all the state statutes I've seen saying that you must follow a police order use the words "lawful order" in the text. Also many of them have limited domain such as "while on a public road" or "during a civil disturbance".

In the "refuse to move on after police asked you to" scenario here, the NYC case "People v. Galpern" is often used as precedent. In that case the defendant was found guilty simply because he was, in the officer's view, obstructing the sidewalk. He was not otherwise disturbing the peace. From this case, the courts tend to side on the judgement of the arresting officer unless there are extreme circumstances.

>>techno+vK
I'm in California. In our state, it's part of the Vehicle Code, but courts regularly construe it as applying anywhere in public. I have personal knowledge, unfortunately, that violating the California Vehicle Code is in many cases a criminal and not civil matter. The statute doesn't include any qualifier that the order be lawful. I suspect that "and was performing his duties" is meant to cover that question, representing a legal fiction that cops would never issue an unlawful order.

For those who are interested in reading beyond Galpern, some other relevant classic cases are Terry v. Ohio and People v. Cohen.