Trans Woman Arrested at Pride Parade for trying to Burn Thin Blue Line Flag

Philadelphia cops arrested a trans woman at a Philadelphia Pride Parade for attempting to burn a Thin Blue Line flag.

The woman, an 18-year old, identified by police by her former name Ryan Segin, was arrested for "attempting to set a thin blue line American Flag on fire " on June 10 at 12:10 p.m., according to a police report.

But the flag wasn't actually an American flag; it was a Thin Blue Line flag.

Police tackled Segin before slapping her with several charges for exercising her First Amendment right to freedom of expression.

The incident occurred in Philadelphia's "Gayborhood" during the Philadelphia Pride Parade.

Segin never actually started a fire, but police observed her with lighter fluid and say she was about to burn a Thin Blue line flag during the parade.

The Thin Blue Line flag consists of an American flag design with a thin blue stripe through the middle, which typically represents the secret code of silence among cops, which they refer to as Thin Blue Line, although most police don't admit that publicly, and claim the blue line honors officers killed on-duty.

Segin, who was jailed on a $5,000 bail before supporters posted her bail, was charged with risking a catastrophe, recklessly endangering another person and attempted arson.

A photographer for WHYY News captured photos of Philly police officer tackling Segin and posted them to Twitter.

Nearly 30 years ago in United States v. Eichman, the Supreme Court ruled burning a flag is Constitutionally protected free speech.

However, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania Mary Catherine Roper says while flag burning is protected free speech, police can decide to arrest a person if they think their actions endanger people.

"Burning something in the middle of the crowd, she can be charged with endangering," Roper told NJ.com.

"The First Amendment doesn't protect her if she's creating a dangerous situation."

Flag burnings happen frequently at crowded protests, Roper said, because the point is for it to be seen.

The issue about whether or not Segin endangered others will be up to the courts to decide.

But some wonder if Segin was arrested for endangering others or for her perceived disrespect to the Thin Blue Line.

Comments (19)
View Newer Messages
packetguy
packetguy

CopyCat, regarding the protester's former name, unless he legally changed it, that is the name of record.

packetguy
packetguy

CopyCat, ANYONE protesting in public has no expectation of privacy. None. Zero. You protest in public, anyone is entitled to photograph you and distribute that photo anyway they like. This is why so many cowardly SJWs wear masks. But anyone can legally unmask them.

CoyCat
CoyCat

PLEASE be careful sharing pictures of her as Nazis are on the prowl. Also don't see the point of including her former name. You're exposing her to danger.

packetguy
packetguy

@AnonymissOC, you mean YOU recommend. I reject your abuse of pronouns. You are not a we.

TrizzyBob
TrizzyBob

I would have to see a visual of the density before I started encouraging people to protest a 1st Amendment retaliation.

But it would be interesting to see if all three of those charges would be required to merge by the Double Jeopardy Clause if convicted of all three charges.

I've seen were a Oregon CopBlocker was coerced into a plea deal because he was charged with two felonies of the same class, which would be required to merge becsuse they are the same offense.

Wait..CopWatcher...He is a Cop Watcher.....oh frack it.

You people are failing at repeatedly and publicly belittling Ponte's little bama-self for pleading guilty to a federal gun possession charge, without challenging his coerced felony plead were the jeopardy violation had already been identified for those two statutes. So maybe, when he starts doing his time in the federal resort, he'll know all the in and outs and can make a colorable heabas claim without having to do all the research when he gets there. Or at least plant the thought in his head so he might find some entertain in researching question of law in that luxurious law library.

Wait..... I'm the idiot who almost always misses the obvious.

And just because I wasn't smart enough to find caselaw that answered that exact and narrow question law, doesn't mean that there is no case that answers that narrow question of law.

It just feels morally corrupt to use two possible sentences to down to one sentence. When only one sentence can lawfully be imposed, even if convicted of both.