Zeke was in a crowd, though. He couldn’t have blocked the bridge by himself.
Could he argue that he couldn’t escape the crowd and thus was deprived of his choice?
Looks like he joined the crowd with the intent to help it block the bridge. If he later changed his mind but couldn’t get out… well, didn’t we already cover this in another chapter?
Sound like it was intent to reach city hall and protest outside that. You never said he intended to STAY on the bridge.
No, that would be conspiracy to obstruct. :-)
I kinda have to wonder about this one, though… as written, the protest march got onto the bridge, but wasn’t stopping until the police actually stopped it. So my concern is that Zeke (and the march) were not intending to “obstruct the bridge”, and instead merely passing along it. Assuming any random passers-by weren’t being prevented from also crossing the bridge, the march would simply have been using its entire capacity.
Wouldn’t be an “entrapment” defense, though.
It seems like it should. The crime they’re accused of is blocking the bridge, and the cops surrounded them at both ends and made them to do that. If the cops literally forcing you to commit a crime isn’t entrapment, what is?
Not only did they literally force the protesters to commit a crime, they literally trapped them.
What? Useing the bridge to cross the river isn’t a crime, even if it temporarily prevents others from using it – otherwise we’d be arresting everyone who drove across!
The crowd was on its way to city hall. The bridge was their path. They were crossing it, *then the police blocked them from getting off, forcing them to stay there blocking traffic*. In what way is this not entrapment?