This is a lot of words again. > No. But an injunction doesn't put these people into jail. Literally lol. What are you talking about? If the cops are able to a

This is a lot of words again. > No. But an injunction doesn't put these people into jail. Literally lol. What are you talking about? If the cops are able to arrest you on sight, that means they take you to jail on sight without you having to have committed an actual crime. That is literally the intent of this injunction. The SFPD huffed and puffed about their inability to secure a conviction so they tried to reduce the burden of proof to justify a “crime” has been committed to “a cop saw you on the wrong street.” It is a blatant and shameless attempt at a power grab, nothing less. Serious question: Where do you think the police take people after arrest? Anyway, so for question 1 your answer is “Yes.” As for question 2, your answer is “No.” Your entire view of this situation is that you support police power overreach because you don’t think it’ll be used against you. It’ll only be used against criminals and bad guys! And you could never even be mistaken or accused of that because you’re just so gosh darn polite to the cops (a sign that you’re more intelligent and a more productive member of society than anybody that could _ever_ be targeted by police.) Third yes or no question: Do you work in law enforcement? This sort of huffy propaganda tends to come directly from cops and the sycophants that tend to surround and idolize them.