@1:

Unless you're a racist white man brandishing an AR-15 and desperately in need of a haircut - then, it's all "meh, whatever" from teh police.

Unless you're a racist white man brandishing an AR-15 and desperately in need of a haircut - then it's "meh, whatever" from the police...

White man brandishing an AR-15 in an ignorant rage-fit doesn't get told to disperse.

To tackle a man for playing a trumpet in public is, in my opinion, an unforgivable act of vicious police brutality.
However, had that been a bagpipe...

@4 In California, they passed the Mulford act back in '67 SPECIFICALLY because black men were marching in the streets with rifles. Introduced by a Republican and signed by no less than Ronald Regan who said "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons." I'm generally pro-2nd amendment--but the dudes intimidating the public by rolling armed like that should be illegal. If it was good for the Panthers, it should be good for the Proud Boys.

How are curfews Constitutional? Fuck Durkan. Fuck SPD.

@4:

No more illegal than a black man not carrying any weapon at all - and yet, which one is orders of magnitude more likely to be shot or asphyxiated by police? Could there be a reason for that?

Durkan and Best are hypocrites at best, and complicit at worst. No reason to tackle or arrest this person.

The pretzel twisting logic the usual suspects are using to support this curfew while being apoplectic about their constitutional rights being violated a few weeks ago sure is something to see.

@6 -- That was great. @22 -- I was thinking the same thing. Maybe he should have been left alone. It seems like the trumpet playing did no harm. Mostly this is just cops being stupid, not realizing the clock is on their side (eventually people gots to go home).

But "tackle"? Hell no. That wasn't a tackle, that was barely two-hand touch. They gently pushed him off his soapbox (sorry, bucket) and then they arrested him. He ended up collapsing, in a show of passive resistance. If they tackled him, he would have hit the pavement. In the actual arrest, the cops responded responsibly. As to the decision to arrest him, I stick with my first paragraph.

@24 Smart cops would have tossed a quarter next to the bucket, or started a little dance.

@26: I know I give you a lot of guff, but that made me laugh and laugh. :)

I'm not a journalist and I run the risk of being another armchair quarterback but this article prompts more questions than answers for me. From what I remember in high school, journalists are expected to answer the questions "who? What? Where? When? Why?. Surely this man deserves be to be known as something other than "trumpet guy". Maybe I'm unrealistic but it seems that he could have been interviewed to find out his story and HIS perception of events. This feels like lazy journalism. You have to get in the trenches to get the facts, they are not going to magically float up to you while livestreaming from a distance.