Man Arrested For Asking Questions At KC Public Library

[MI2AZ]

The executive director of the Kansas City library system says he is "outraged" that prosecutors continue to pursue charges against a man who was arrested after asking pointed questions during a library discussion about the Middle East peace process and an employee who tried to intervene. Although the arrests occurred in May following a speech by author and diplomat Dennis Ross, the library system only recently went public about its opposition to charges, the Kansas City Star reported. R. Crosby Kemper III, executive director of the city's library system, said "we're going to be living in a different kind of country" if people can be arrested for asking questions at a library.

Issues arose after Ross finished speaking and took a question from Jeremy Rothe-Kushel concerning whether Jewish Americans should be concerned about actions by the US and Israel that amount to "state-sponsored terrorism." When Rothe-Kushel tried to ask another question, a private security guard grasped his arm, followed by an off-duty police officer, both employed by the Jewish Community Foundation. Rothe-Kushel then shouted, "Get your hands off of me right now!" Steve Woolfolk, director of public programming for the library, tried to intervene. Both men were arrested by off-duty officers who had been hired by the event sponsor; they face charges in city court, Rothe-Kushel with trespassing and resisting arrest and Woolfolk with interfering with an arrest. Kemper says the private security guards had no right to remove a patron for asking a question.

 

[sevenpin63]

I would be sueing the fuck out that organisation

 

[Good Times Good Times]

Rothe-Kushel then shouted, "Get your hands off of me right now!" Steve Woolfolk, director of public programming for the library, tried to intervene. Both men were arrested by off-duty officers who had been hired by the event sponsor; they face charges in city court, Rothe-Kushel with trespassing and resisting arrest and Woolfolk with interfering with an arrest. Kemper says the private security guards had no right to remove a patron for asking a question.

This is amazing. According to advice here he should just comply and then the resisting charge wouldn't exist.

What people take issue with is that now they're arrested (stripped of liberty), processed and have to now go to court and deal with bullshit when it (the situation) should never exist to begin with. What we don't seem to grasp is this concept. And when we confront that fact, we get "reasonable suspicion" etc.

Let me try here, "the officer has a duty to protect the public and he felt, in that moment, things could get out of hand with the line and tone of questioning. The man who was asking the question should have just complied and handed his liberty over. What doesn't matter is whether it was justified or not. If he was shot it would have been his fault."

Something like that?

 

[Good Times Good Times]

Strangely, people can be charged with nothing else but resisting arrest – meaning that their only crime was resisting arrest. This makes little sense. In essence, there was no reason to arrest them, but since they resisted their wrongful arrest, they are now criminals.

This law is somewhat vague, and assumes that officers “in the discharge or attempt to discharge” their duty are always doing the right thing. Herein lies the problem. In fact, sometimes officers do harass people for absolutely no reason, and when people rightfully resist, the officers use the “resisting arrest” charge as a subjugation or punishment for resisting their authority.

 

[9andaWiggle]

This is amazing. According to advice here he should just comply and then the resisting charge wouldn't exist.

What people take issue with is that now they're arrested (stripped of liberty), processed and have to now go to court and deal with bullshit when it (the situation) should never exist to begin with. What we don't seem to grasp is this concept. And when we confront that fact, we get "reasonable suspicion" etc.

Let me try here, "the officer has a duty to protect the public and he felt, in that moment, things could get out of hand with the line and tone of questioning. The man who was asking the question should have just complied and handed his liberty over. What doesn't matter is whether it was justified or not. If he was shot it would have been his fault."

Something like that?

Was this arrest just and fair? From the info provided, I say no. It was bullshit. Sounds like the thought police showed up and violated his rights as an American. BUT... is the guy still alive? Why yes, yes he is. And he can have his day in court, then have another day in court when he sues the living shit out of everyone involved.

Besides, what were his choices at that moment? Security already decided to make an arrest. I guess he should have started a fist fight with them and got himself tazed and/or shot?

 

[WAMO]

YOU ARE CORRECT GT. "SOMETIMES" SOME OFFICERS GET CAUGHT UP IN A MOMENT. I DO NOT THINK THIS ARREST WAS JUSTIFIED. BUT AGAIN, THIS IS NOT THE "NORM" FOR MOST OFFICERS. FROM WHAT I JUST READ, IT WAS A SECURITY GUARD WHO STARTED THE DOWNFALL AND THE OFFICER STEPPED IN, MAYBE TO TRY AND DEFUSE THE SITUATION. IT DOESNT SAY WHAT THE MOOD OF THE CROWD WAS. AND AGAIN, I DONT THINK THIS WAS A GOOD ARREST JUDGING FROM THE ARTICLE ABOVE.

 

[Good Times Good Times]

Was this arrest just and fair? From the info provided, I say no. It was bullshit. Sounds like the thought police showed up and violated his rights as an American. BUT... is the guy still alive? Why yes, yes he is. And he can have his day in court, then have another day in court when he sues the living shit out of everyone involved.

Besides, what were his choices at that moment? Security already decided to make an arrest. I guess he should have started a fist fight with them and got himself tazed and/or shot?

Looks like I was correct.

Regardless, I'll suppose you all would drop all charges and just render a guilty charge for the resisting arrest here?

 

[livespive]

See and that is what we try to get across to Rob. Just because you are in blue, does not mean you are right.

Was this arrest just and fair? From the info provided, I say no. It was bullshit. Sounds like the thought police showed up and violated his rights as an American. BUT... is the guy still alive? Why yes, yes he is. And he can have his day in court, then have another day in court when he sues the living shit out of everyone involved.

Besides, what were his choices at that moment? Security already decided to make an arrest. I guess he should have started a fist fight with them and got himself tazed and/or shot?

 

[Good Times Good Times]

Oh I get it now, "provocative questions (a.k.a. first amendment) = reasonable suspicion".

"Regardless of whether that's correct, you hand your liberty over at my demand damnit! And it's your fault if I shoot you." - Cops

 

[Robadat]

See and that is what we try to get across to Rob. Just because you are in blue, does not mean you are right.

Never said that the men in blue are right 100% of the time. They do make mistakes and this situation could have been handled much better by the security guards. Original guy should have just quietly left when security came over to him and requested he leave. Instead he got into a shouting match with the officers who then had to forcefully remove him. In today's lawsuit happy age, once a cop has to put his hands on someone, he has to make an arrest, gone are the days when the cop could just physically throw him out of the building and send him on his way.

Second guy was totally wrong, whether or not the arrest was legit, you can not interfere with a cop making an arrest.

 

[Good Times Good Times]

I spy tyranny.

cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control.

 

[9andaWiggle]

Looks like I was correct.

Regardless, I'll suppose you all would drop all charges and just render a guilty charge for the resisting arrest here?

Correct about what? I'm not saying it is right. I'm not saying the charges by the police were correct. And I'm not saying we shouldn't try to correct the issue. I'm just sayin that at the point of contact, it's stupid to argue with someone who 1) has already decided they're going to arrest you, and 2) have the tools on hand to incapacitate or kill you.

Perhaps I've misunderstood what you're saying. But my thoughts are, who has won an argument with an arresting officer? Who has got in an officer's face, physically engaged an officer, or even took off running from the officer and won that battle in the long run?

Even though the courts are sometimes as corrupt as the officers, at least if you're alive you can fight them in the courts (and media) where you might actually have a chance at winning and bringing about change.

 

[Good Times Good Times]

Correct about what? I'm not saying it is right. I'm not saying the charges by the police were correct. And I'm not saying we shouldn't try to correct the issue. I'm just sayin that at the point of contact, it's stupid to argue with someone who 1) has already decided they're going to arrest you, and 2) have the tools on hand to incapacitate or kill you.

Perhaps I've misunderstood what you're saying. But my thoughts are, who has won an argument with an arresting officer? Who has got in an officer's face, physically engaged an officer, or even took off running from the officer and won that battle in the long run?

Even though the courts are sometimes as corrupt as the officers, at least if you're alive you can fight them in the courts (and media) where you might actually have a chance at winning and bringing about change.

I'm saying that (as mentioned in my previous post) "sometimes officers do harass people for absolutely no reason, and when people rightfully resist, the officers use the “resisting arrest” charge as a subjugation or punishment for resisting their authority." needs to stop. The OP is a classic example of this. This is why I'd show my I.D. and not answer any questions.

There needs to be HARSH repercussions towards the arresting officers in these situations. This auto-relinquish my rights when my rights are violated is weak asf.

 

[Good Times Good Times]

Here's my sentiment after a description of the events:

http://www.mhpbooks.com/library-worker-arrested-and-maimed-by-kansas-city-police-at-public-event/

"What. The. Fuck? Right? Although, I suppose we should be inured to this kind of police overreach. And hey, at least they didn’t blow him away. So… good job cops? Admirable show of restraint? Congratulations on not killing a public servant in his workplace?

This is pretty disturbing stuff. And it should be a wake up call to everyone who thinks the epidemic of police violence plaguing the country is simply a response to aggressive protesters or the ubiquity of handguns or whatever. You can get beat up and arrested in a public library, where you work, for doing your job, protecting the free speech of one of your patrons. Think about it."

 

[Good Times Good Times]

Correct about what? I'm not saying it is right. I'm not saying the charges by the police were correct. And I'm not saying we shouldn't try to correct the issue. I'm just sayin that at the point of contact, it's stupid to argue with someone who 1) has already decided they're going to arrest you, and 2) have the tools on hand to incapacitate or kill you.

Perhaps I've misunderstood what you're saying. But my thoughts are, who has won an argument with an arresting officer? Who has got in an officer's face, physically engaged an officer, or even took off running from the officer and won that battle in the long run?

Even though the courts are sometimes as corrupt as the officers, at least if you're alive you can fight them in the courts (and media) where you might actually have a chance at winning and bringing about change.

1) You'd support a guilty charge on the resisting arrest, correct?

2) If the guy had been shot (again, having done absolutely nothing in the realm of wrong), you'd blame the victim, correct?

 

[9andaWiggle]

1) You'd support a guilty charge on the resisting arrest, correct?

2) If the guy had been shot (again, having done absolutely nothing in the realm of wrong), you'd blame the victim, correct?

1) It's a slippery slope. You don't want to encourage resisting, which could very well encourage others to jeopardize their well bring during an arrest, but at the same time you don't want to punish someone for being falsely accused/arrested either. Where's the middle ground? Not sure I can answer that or provide a "fair" solution.

2) Depends. IF he played a part in choosing to escalate the situation. That's not to say the police are right and may not deserve to be brought up on charges, but if you're getting arrested and give them an excuse to shoot, that's on YOU. Totally different if there is no resisting and they still shoot. In that situation, how can the victim be blamed?

 

[Good Times Good Times]

1) It's a slippery slope. You don't want to encourage resisting, which could very well encourage others to jeopardize their well bring during an arrest, but at the same time you don't want to punish someone for being falsely accused/arrested either. Where's the middle ground? Not sure I can answer that or provide a "fair" solution.

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

2) Depends. IF he played a part in choosing to escalate the situation. That's not to say the police are right and may not deserve to be brought up on charges, but if you're getting arrested and give them an excuse to shoot, that's on YOU. Totally different if there is no resisting and they still shoot. In that situation, how can the victim be blamed?

I understand (not in total agreement) your position. I just don't have an authoritarian personality.

 

[livespive]

"Original guy should have just quietly left when security came over to him and requested he leave."

That is what I am saying, just because you walk up and tell me to leave doesn't mean that you are right.

If you are going to tell me to leave, make sure your ducks are in a row, make sure that I am REALY doing something.

Never said that the men in blue are right 100% of the time. They do make mistakes and this situation could have been handled much better by the security guards. Original guy should have just quietly left when security came over to him and requested he leave. Instead he got into a shouting match with the officers who then had to forcefully remove him. In today's lawsuit happy age, once a cop has to put his hands on someone, he has to make an arrest, gone are the days when the cop could just physically throw him out of the building and send him on his way.

Second guy was totally wrong, whether or not the arrest was legit, you can not interfere with a cop making an arrest.

 

[Good Times Good Times]

"Original guy should have just quietly left when security came over to him and requested he leave."

That is what I am saying, just because you walk up and tell me to leave doesn't mean that you are right.

If you are going to tell me to leave, make sure your ducks are in a row, make sure that I am REALY doing something.

We need to auto-comply in this police state live, it doesn't matter what you have/have not actually done, it only matters what you're ordered to do.......otherwise the beat down/charges you get are your fault.

I think I'm understanding this view.......

 

[livespive]

Funny.

We need to auto-comply in this police state live, it doesn't matter what you have/have not actually done, it only matters what you're ordered to do.......otherwise the beat down/charges you get are your fault.

I think I'm understanding this view.......