Jump to content

[Police brutality] American injustice, yet again.


Ragitsu

Recommended Posts

Technically swearing at someone could, iirc be considered assault.

 

Under modern caselaw that's not even close to true. I don't have references at hand, and being lazy (and on a tablet ATM) I'm not inclined to look for them, but basically being rude or insulting to a cop has specifically been afforded First Amendment protection by the Federal courts. Just for a start, it's a restriction based on the content of speech, rather than its effects, which has been expressly forbidden by the SCOTUS for the better part of a century. 

 

That's not to say unconstitutional laws, particularly WRT the First Amendment, aren't on the books in many states. Even worse, it's pretty common for at least lower level state judges to have literally no background in the law, or interest in learning, who violate the First Amendment out of hand. Of course, that's how we get that caselaw correcting things, so it's not a total loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you swear hard enough, it might turn into "Fighting Words".  From a Salt Lake Tribune article (no longer available), there was an article about a new set of "Fighting Words" guidelines the city had put out.

 

 

it does provide examples of constitutional and unconstitutional speech, as deemed by various courts. For instance, a Wisconsin court ruled that protesters who formed a semicircle near a woman and shouted for six minutes that she was "a whore, harlot and Jezebel" were using "fighting words," which are not constitutionally protected.

 

Fighting words are defined as personal insults directed at individuals that are likely to create a violent reaction and play no role in the expression of ideas.

"If it [calling a woman a harlot] is directed to a specific person and especially in the presence of children or somebody's new husband, anybody could expect that that would elicit a violent response and that very likely would be considered fighting words under established constitutional doctrine," said Anderson, a former civil-rights attorney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be willing to bet a Fighting Words based conviction for swearing at a cop wouldn't survive appeal, except in the most extreme circumstances. The Fighting Words doctrine survives, to the modest extent it does, has to do with certain speech provoking an Imminent Lawless Reaction - another SCOTUS standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spokane Sheriff's Department deputy says MRAPs are for going after Constitutionalists, Preppers, and people "stockpiling" guns:

 

 

Whatever your opinion may be of Alex Jones and Infowars, the fact remains that they caught this moron on camera saying all this, and it is a reflection on the kind of "training" these goosestepping pinheads are getting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit: This is in response to the Alex Jones clip above.

 

That clip cuts off the full answer, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. We recently had a murder up this way that was committed by a guy who was a prepper who thought he could get away to his bunker in the woods. A while back before that, there was a group in (I think) Wyoming, who were busted for plotting to kill off the local police. So, yeah, some bad elements aren't doing much for the reputation of the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't tell who the bigger ass is here, the cop or the Young Turks moron.

Oh, the Young Turks guy is often condescending that I can't stand him

but I get the feeling if the Young Turks moron shot me, he'd go to jail.

The cop? He's a moron with power over life and death, and that alarms me more

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit: This is in response to the Alex Jones clip above.

 

That clip cuts off the full answer, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. We recently had a murder up this way that was committed by a guy who was a prepper who thought he could get away to his bunker in the woods. A while back before that, there was a group in (I think) Wyoming, who were busted for plotting to kill off the local police. So, yeah, some bad elements aren't doing much for the reputation of the rest.

You want to give that blood-thirsty knuckledragger the "benefit of the doubt" go right ahead. He has scumbag written all over him from my perspective, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Follmer is so clueless to his own arrogance and borderline evil that it is...down right chilling

 

What's freaky is the absolute lack of empathy for the family of the dead child.

 

Can they not admit any feelings of regret for fear of that being used against them in a legal arena? It's a flucked up situation either way.

 

 

I can't tell who the bigger ass is here, the cop or the Young Turks moron.

 

I'd say the guy that's trying to put civilians in their proper (knees on the ground, torso bent forward, hands behind the back) place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, the Young Turks guy is often condescending that I can't stand him

but I get the feeling if the Young Turks moron shot me, he'd go to jail.

The cop? He's a moron with power over life and death, and that alarms me more

 

Oh, don't think I'm defending the cop. He's clearly got issues. I just really dislike that Young Turks guy. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yeah...that video reminded me of something.

 

On more than one occasion, law enforcement personnel, or those squarely on their side no matter what, comment that black suspects often look older than they are (in this case, a twelve year old apparently appeared to be twenty years old). The implication here is that the older you are, the more of a threat you are, correct?

Well, if that's the case, why aren't police better taught how to assess a black suspect's age? Is this some impossibility that will never get worked around?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want to give that blood-thirsty knuckledragger the "benefit of the doubt" go right ahead. He has scumbag written all over him from my perspective, however.

 

Well, let's hope you don't ever pull jury duty, since you're so willing to convict someone on half-baked, edited evidence from a known loon. I'll judge the guy after I hear the whole clip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone's close enough to you that their spittle is an issue, and angry enough to produce said spittle, I'd suggest that they should probably have their behavior corrected. That would seem to be in the attempting to provoke a fight category.

 

When I was in CA, there was a code against trying to provoke a law enforcement officer. We were told not to actually arrest anyone over it, though. Probably too much hassle/expense over such a gray area type of charge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...