The street performance
may not be a crime, but if they were annoying the people around them on the day, it could lead to trouble. That is why they separate people at football grounds; it pre-empts a situation that will probably happen. I admit I'm playing devils advocate a little here, but the point still stands. Is it better to stop a crime or just hoover up after the carnage?
(
TheSundaeLunch I'm a fucking shrub, alright?, Sat 30 Apr 2011, 13:47,
Reply)
Hoover up after the carnage, if that occurs
But it doesn't seem like these people were out to cause carnage. If the police have credible evidence of imminent violence, then sure act. But we shouldn't be locking people up, because they might be annoying to someone who might be violent, and then violence might occur.
The logical conclusion of pre-emptive policing like this is to lock everyone up until the can prove that they'll never do anything wrong.
(
Sextant goes to him is emotionally erect, on this day, Sat 30 Apr 2011, 14:51,
Reply)
So, by that logic
carrying an offensive weapon should not be a crime? I should be able to carry a loaded gun but only be arrested if I use it to intimidate or shoot someone. But just having it should be legal. If I use it, then you arrest me. I'm confusing myself now...
(
TheSundaeLunch I'm a fucking shrub, alright?, Sat 30 Apr 2011, 15:03,
Reply)