I don't see an issue of free speech here. All I can see is a thug using the cover of a police uniform to beat up people he doesn't like with impunity. In a just world, Hawkins would be charged with "inflicting grievous bodily harm" (a torn ligament in your knee is no joke, it might never heal), be locked away for a while and made to pay substantial restitution.
He was hired and acting under the orders of the Library's staff.
Though the Library is 'owned by the government' - it is not 'public property' - for example, you can't do or say anything you want, as you could on the sidewalk.
Though it seems one of the Library's staff was interceding on behalf of the accused - the cop (effectively acting as a cop - and he's hired to do security, so let's not refer to this as some 'random cop who was off duty and saw something) was acting in the interest of the Library - it's up to them who to eject and who not to.
I think the real question here is was the cop acting on his own initiative or at the best of the people that hired him.
If the Library's staff wanted the man out, then it's likely their issue.
If the cop was kicking some guy out wherein his employers wanted the person to stay - well then that's just weird.
But if a authorized security person for a private engagement asks you to leave - you definitely have to leave, and any kerfluffle you start is your escalation.
It seems that the library is intent on pressing charges? Did I read that correctly? In which case the cop was obviously acting on their regard, and perfectly within his right to eject someone.
I think that this guy's beef should be with the Library, not the cop, if that is indeed the case.
cop acting [...] at the best of the people that hired him
See, that's precisely the problem. Cops don't act in anyone's interest, they act to enforce the law. Because they are bound by the law, they have a monopoly on the use of force. At least that's the theory. If you're the mafia and want someone to do the bone breaking for you, you can't hire a cop, you hire a thug. Such as this man.
Moreover, he was hired by the speaker, not by the library. He also didn't eject anyone, he choose to first intimidate, then injure someone. And he appeared thoroughly confused about what he was doing and on whose behalf. The library clearly isn't pressing charges for "resisting arrest", firstly because there was no attempted arrest that could have been resisted, and second because only the police state can press this particular kind of charge.
"Cops don't act in anyone's interest, they act to enforce the law. Because they are bound by the law, they have a monopoly on the use of force. At least that's the theory. If you're the mafia and want someone to do the bone breaking for you, you can't hire a cop, you hire a thug. Such as this man."
Repugnant.
The police don't have a monopoly on anything and are not a 'mafia' any more than Barack Obama is the head of a giant 'mafia'.
" And he appeared thoroughly confused about what he was doing and on whose behalf. " - this is the fault of the Library and the Speaker - not the cop.
"The library clearly isn't pressing charges for "resisting arrest"" - the Library can't 'press or not' for this kind of charge. It's not an offence against them, i.e. robbery.
"and second because only the police state can press this particular kind of charge." - no - every civilized nation in the world can 'press charges' for 'resisting arrest'.
There is a lot of ambiguity in this article, it's not clear what happened, and it only serves as fodder for cop-haters and anti-government lunatics to troll.
If a security guard was asking someone to leave at the behest of the library's staff - then this has absolutely nothing to do with police, security guards or any of it.
That one of the people with criminal charges is an employee of the library who tried to get the guard to stop assaulting a member of the public:
Both the librarian and the patron face criminal charges.
That the guard had ignored their instructions about not interfering with people who pose no risk of harm to the other guests:
According to the library, as part of the agreement nobody was to be prevented from asking a controversial question and the security team would consult with library officials before ejecting any nonviolent patrons.
That the question asker had offered to leave if asked?
Rothe-Kushel can be heard saying, “Ask me to leave [and] I will leave.”
and so on.
I mean, this ...
When he bounced out of the chair onto the floor, the guards forced him back into the chair, and handcuffed him.
No, it's not, it's not a criminal offence anywhere in the Western world for security guards to do such a thing.
I read the article - I didn't miss those quotes.
I think you are missing something important:
* charges laid *
Meaning that there are legal charges against those two - indicating they had possibly done something illegal.
While I agree it's 'confusing' that one of the library staff, for whom the security guard may have ostensibly been working - implored the guard to 'not kick the man out' - I don't this resolves the question.
"as part of the agreement nobody was to be prevented from asking a controversial question and the security team would consult with library officials before ejecting any nonviolent patrons"
I get that - but was the guard acting on his own here?
It remains unclear to me - which is my point.
If this security guard was acting entirely on his own initiative, and just kicking a guy out for asking 'controversial' (and let's be fair: insulting and stupid) questions, then yes - there's obviously something crazy going on. Why were they ejected?
But I'm not sure it's clear from the article, which is my point.
"Ask me to leave [and] I will leave.” - obviously someone was asking him to leave.
I think the writer did a poor job of articulating the situation.
Comments
I don't see an issue of free speech here. All I can see is a thug using the cover of a police uniform to beat up people he doesn't like with impunity. In a just world, Hawkins would be charged with "inflicting grievous bodily harm" (a torn ligament in your knee is no joke, it might never heal), be locked away for a while and made to pay substantial restitution.
Thug?
He was hired and acting under the orders of the Library's staff.
Though the Library is 'owned by the government' - it is not 'public property' - for example, you can't do or say anything you want, as you could on the sidewalk.
Though it seems one of the Library's staff was interceding on behalf of the accused - the cop (effectively acting as a cop - and he's hired to do security, so let's not refer to this as some 'random cop who was off duty and saw something) was acting in the interest of the Library - it's up to them who to eject and who not to.
I think the real question here is was the cop acting on his own initiative or at the best of the people that hired him.
If the Library's staff wanted the man out, then it's likely their issue.
If the cop was kicking some guy out wherein his employers wanted the person to stay - well then that's just weird.
But if a authorized security person for a private engagement asks you to leave - you definitely have to leave, and any kerfluffle you start is your escalation.
It seems that the library is intent on pressing charges? Did I read that correctly? In which case the cop was obviously acting on their regard, and perfectly within his right to eject someone.
I think that this guy's beef should be with the Library, not the cop, if that is indeed the case.
See, that's precisely the problem. Cops don't act in anyone's interest, they act to enforce the law. Because they are bound by the law, they have a monopoly on the use of force. At least that's the theory. If you're the mafia and want someone to do the bone breaking for you, you can't hire a cop, you hire a thug. Such as this man.
Moreover, he was hired by the speaker, not by the library. He also didn't eject anyone, he choose to first intimidate, then injure someone. And he appeared thoroughly confused about what he was doing and on whose behalf. The library clearly isn't pressing charges for "resisting arrest", firstly because there was no attempted arrest that could have been resisted, and second because only the police state can press this particular kind of charge.
"Cops don't act in anyone's interest, they act to enforce the law. Because they are bound by the law, they have a monopoly on the use of force. At least that's the theory. If you're the mafia and want someone to do the bone breaking for you, you can't hire a cop, you hire a thug. Such as this man."
Repugnant.
The police don't have a monopoly on anything and are not a 'mafia' any more than Barack Obama is the head of a giant 'mafia'.
" And he appeared thoroughly confused about what he was doing and on whose behalf. " - this is the fault of the Library and the Speaker - not the cop.
"The library clearly isn't pressing charges for "resisting arrest"" - the Library can't 'press or not' for this kind of charge. It's not an offence against them, i.e. robbery.
"and second because only the police state can press this particular kind of charge." - no - every civilized nation in the world can 'press charges' for 'resisting arrest'.
There is a lot of ambiguity in this article, it's not clear what happened, and it only serves as fodder for cop-haters and anti-government lunatics to troll.
If a security guard was asking someone to leave at the behest of the library's staff - then this has absolutely nothing to do with police, security guards or any of it.
The article mentions:
That one of the people with criminal charges is an employee of the library who tried to get the guard to stop assaulting a member of the public:
That the guard had ignored their instructions about not interfering with people who pose no risk of harm to the other guests:
That the question asker had offered to leave if asked?
and so on.
I mean, this ...
... is a criminal offence in England.
"... is a criminal offence in England."
No, it's not, it's not a criminal offence anywhere in the Western world for security guards to do such a thing.
I read the article - I didn't miss those quotes.
I think you are missing something important:
* charges laid *
Meaning that there are legal charges against those two - indicating they had possibly done something illegal.
While I agree it's 'confusing' that one of the library staff, for whom the security guard may have ostensibly been working - implored the guard to 'not kick the man out' - I don't this resolves the question.
"as part of the agreement nobody was to be prevented from asking a controversial question and the security team would consult with library officials before ejecting any nonviolent patrons"
I get that - but was the guard acting on his own here?
It remains unclear to me - which is my point.
If this security guard was acting entirely on his own initiative, and just kicking a guy out for asking 'controversial' (and let's be fair: insulting and stupid) questions, then yes - there's obviously something crazy going on. Why were they ejected?
But I'm not sure it's clear from the article, which is my point.
"Ask me to leave [and] I will leave.” - obviously someone was asking him to leave.
I think the writer did a poor job of articulating the situation.