This article was trying to prove that the anarchists that were arrested were arrested for a more just cause than the accusations from random pedestrians. The evidence provided, and I am using the word evidence very loosely, was that the brother in law of Schwab bought two rifles earlier in the year. The article was trying to put together that since someone related to one of the alleged dynamite throwers, it made them guilty of the crime. As well all know this is not a reasonable cause for arrest because there is no evidence that a gun was even present during the events at the Haymarket Square. Another flaw that I believe is present in this argument is that the man who bought the guns, Schwab, was arrested earlier for having the guns. Once arrested Schwab was released because the cops realized that he had a very clean story that could be backed up by many people. However, they still use this evidence to show that Schnabel was guilty. I do not understand how this evidence can be used if it was declared that Schnabel had bought the guns legally and for legal purposes. The last thing I wanted to point out is that the article also mentions the arrest of the newspaper distributor for the anarchists party. The article also mentions that the man was later released with just a five dollar fine. I believe that the man was only arrested to make a sceen during the riot. However, once the man reached court, and the court system realized that he did nothing wrong they gave him such a pathetic punishment to try and show that they have the power to do whatever they want to do, even if there are no laws to back it up.
credit to:
http://hn.bigchalk.com/hnweb/hn/do/document?set=search&start=1&rendition=x-article-image&inmylist=false&urn=urn%3Aproquest%3AUS%3BPQDOC%3BHNP%3BPQD%3BHNP%3BPROD%3Bx-article-image%3B109785964&mylisturn=urn%3Aproquest%3AUS%3BPQDOC%3BHNP%3BPQD%3BHNP%3BPROD%3Bx-citation%3B109785964
No comments:
Post a Comment