Doubt very much it is legal to charge people for police presence at a political protest/rally.
[
Unless the group specifically hired the police. Absent that, the gov't can't charge you to assemble in public.
Did you even read the article you linked?
“I was shocked when I read that I had to pay to exercise my First Amendment right,” said Gil, who thinks she was being targeted for her take on affordable housing in the community.
The mayor said he is the first in decades to combat the housing issue and had no problem with the protest.
“And we made sure that we fulfilled and satisfied our obligation to make sure that they can exercise their freedom of speech and to peaceably assemble,” said Mayor Kranjac.
Kranjac said the borough has an ordinance in place that allows it to bill for any expenses incurred for police services at private events. The bill sent to Gil was standard protocol, he said.
Apparently you did not.
Apparently you believe everything a public official declares without thinking before typing.
Kranjac said the borough has an ordinance in place that allows it to bill for any expenses incurred for police services at private events. The bill sent to Gil was standard protocol, he said.
Bo and I were discussing the fact that free speech does not automatically include freedom from expenses to assemble at private events.
Yes, I understood all of that.
But your emphasis is in one erroneous place, instead of the two it should have been at.
Kranjac said the borough has an ordinance in place that allows it to bill for any expenses incurred for police services at private events. The bill sent to Gil was standard protocol, he said.
You're believing his when he says those things. It might be true, it might not. You have no knowledge here. He could instead be covering his ass by eliminating the bill that perhaps should never have been sent.
Otherwise, the police can assign somebody to any event they feel like and then bill the event whatever they deem they can get away with.
I suggest you go back and read the cited story.
Of course you do. You do that every time that you cannot point out an actual flaw in the other person's argument.
The cited article did not post chapter and verse from the regs. They quoted the man, same as you did. You want to show me a copy of their regs that backs up what he said about them
then show me other instances of their assigning cops to an "event" of this size and type that they then billed for, showing that this is a "standard practice," and I will simply agree and say, "yup,
this time a public official was telling the truth. Yay!"
Otherwise, you are taking his word for it with
zero substantiation.