The Six Clauses/Freedoms of the First Amendment in the Black Lives Matter Protest
By Zea Hirshberg
It's no surprise the Black Lives Matter movement had such an incredible turnout. In fact, it was recorded that in a total of 550 places across the United States of America, half a million people showed up to the protest. The BLM protest began when a 46-year old black man by the name of George Floyd was unjustly killed, and many say murdered, by white police officers. And why? Many suggest the reason for the four police officers' brutal ways was because Floyd was a black male. It's for these two exact purposes, the Minneapolis Police Department fired all four, and one man, in particular, was charged with third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter. Derek Chauvin was clearly identified in witness videos when he pinned Floyd to the ground before putting his knee on his neck and keeping it there for a fatal amount of time even after Floyd lost all consciousness. The remaining three ex-police officers were charged with aiding and abetting second-degree murder. Though it was an unfortunate event that killed Floyd who was never deemed a criminal or innocent for his reason of original arrest, it set off even more and much bigger events.
The Six Clauses, also known as the Six Freedoms, of the First Amendment, apply to most, if not all events but plays a big role in the famous, Black Lives Matter protests occurring all across the country after Floyd's untimely death. One of six clauses states citizens have the right to assemble peacefully. The BLM protests started out to be no different than any other march. Signs were made, people gathered in the streets to made their voices be heard about only one topic that day. But, it took a turn for the worst, and fast. In Boston, Massachusetts, the marchers were met with police brutality which only further accentuated their point of what many believe is to be the lack of training officers receive before heading into the field. Thousands of protesters had shown up outside of the State House at 9pm for a peaceful protest but the night ended very differently than how it had began. Law enforcement had come when the march was supposed to end and used tear gas against the crowded to thin them out but the strategy went south and turned violent. On TV, I remember watching it turn south and how protesters threw the tear gas cannister back at the police. Officers tried to chase down the people retailiating which aided in the rising height of tension. By the time the night had ended, shops had been broken into and items were taken, property had been destroyed. One lawmaker called for an investigation because of how the law enforcement had mishandled the situation and some even say helped escalate it further. Fifty-three protesters were arrested that night and many protesters days after reported officers barricading streets to prohibit people from leaving the scene and many video and eye witnesses state that the police cruisers, which were driving around the area, came dangerously close to hitting peaceful protesters. Multiple officers forced people out of the area using batons by shoving people. Police responded with a statement blaming the protesters of escalating the tension by throwing water bottles and bricks at cruisers and even going as far as burning and damaging them which sent a minimum of nine officers to the hospital with non-life-threathening injuries.
Earlier, I stated that citizens have the right to assemble peacefully. So, in this situation, that was originally the case and intent of the marchers that night. They had zero intention of doing anything more than marching in order to make their voices heard. In the way I see it, it's almost as if police officers showed up to silence people because they disagreed. But I don't agree that neither party is completely innocent in this case. Yes, the police officers were just trying to do their jobs when things escalated too far, but no, they were not in the right to use force, tear gas, or anything more than simple shields to protect themselves. I always see proper training for any law enforcement necessary because how the event in Boston went over, clearly showed how unprepared they were to handle that situation. There was zero reason for them to escalate the situation by starting to use tear gas and that was completely mishandled. On the other hand, I'm not saying citizens in that event are completely innocent either. They could have reacted differently to how the police handled it instead of retailiating for revenge. Both parties resorted to violence to make themselves feel heard. In a news report I discovered on the event (linked down below), the original size was supposed to be 2,000, but was multiplied by ten. Yes, that makes it more dangerous and large than estimated, but that is still no excuse for either parties to do what they did.
The First Amendment would have originally been useful for the protesters because they were marching peacefully. I feel it is still applicable to those who weren't arrested or fought back against the police. But it certainly, certainly cannot be used by law enforcement against the protesters to prove a point against them because they have zero proof that the march was meant to turn into anything violent and it hadn't until they showed up. Neither party is innocent and both are guilty for resorting to violence to get their own points across.
Sources:
https://www.wbur.org/news/2020/06/04/boston-protests-sunday-peaceful-police
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/us/george-floyd-investigation.html
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/07/03/us/george-floyd-protests-crowd-size.html
Comments
Post a Comment