Man Arrested for Holding Sign in Front of PD: "Fuck Free Speech - Stamford PD."

Man protesting friend's free speech arrest is arrested for holding up sign.

Signs, signs, everywhere are signs, and Connecticut police are doing all they can to shut them down.

Last week, Stamford police arrested a man for standing a block away from a police cell phone checkpoint with a sign that read: "Cops ahead" to warn approaching drivers.

This week, police arrested his friend for standing in front of the police department with a sign that read: "Fuck Free Speech - Stamford PD" to protest his friend's arrest.

The Stamford Police Department obviously has an issue with the First Amendment, using petty contempt-of-cop charges to crack down on freedom of speech.

They charged Michael Friend, the man holding the sign to warn drivers about the checkpoint, with interfering, even though he was a block away from the actual checkpoint.

And they charged Michael Picard, the man holding the sign in front of the police department, with breach of peace.

Stamford still have possession of Picard's Go-Pro camera and Friend's two cell phones, all which contain footage of their arrests.

The man who recorded Picard's arrest, Dawud Talib, was not arrested.

Picard is a longtime activist who frequently does open carry demonstrations because it is legal to open carry in Connecticut.

In 2016, he filed a lawsuit against Connecticut State Police after an officer was caught on camera conspiring charges against him to "cover our ass."

Another time in 2016, a Hartford police officer threaten to arrest Picard who was holding a sign warning drivers of an upcoming police checkpoint with "distracting traffic."

Comments (3)
No. 1-3

Probably the same way a cop would explain 1A of the U.S. Constitution does not apply: that being a police officer is being above the law.


Can Stamford's Finest explain how the charges of Breach of Peace supersedes Article 1 Sections 4 & 5 of their State Constitution?


It is as though the cops know the system is not going to give consequences to them for violating us. A ruling like the recent Kisela v. Hughes wouldn't have anything to do with that? "Its decision is not just wrong on the law; it also sends an alarming signal to law enforcement officers and the public. It tells officers that they can shoot first and think later, and it tells the public that palpably unreasonable conduct will go unpunished."