Housing While Black (3 Viewers)

[RCon]

I think the single thing about this thread that frightens me the most is that it seems that Gigantomachia is a college professor. If this is so, I weep for the state of higher education.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

I only crack my window enough to hand them my id and car info

FIGHT THE POWER!

The right of the people to be complete douchebags shall not be infringed!

Wow, I thought this country was about freedom not ### kissing.

You have the right to act like a passive-aggressive ######## if you want.

 

[Gigantomachia]

I only crack my window enough to hand them my id and car info

FIGHT THE POWER!

The right of the people to be complete douchebags shall not be infringed!

Wow, I thought this country was about freedom not ### kissing.

You have the right to act like a passive-aggressive ######## if you want.

Thank you.

 

[Gigantomachia]

I think the single thing about this thread that frightens me the most is that it seems that Gigantomachia is a college professor. If this is so, I weep for the state of higher education.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

 

[Gigantomachia]

Ok, this has been a blast, but I have to grade papers.

Thanks for morning entertainment!!

 

[Parrothead]

Ok, this has been a blast, but I have to grade papers.Thanks for morning entertainment!!

make sure you stop being a girly-man and give the next cop you see the business!!!

 

[Nigel]

Hey Gigantomachia - instead of acting like a doosh when a cop pulls you over for speeding why not cooperate? Most cops I know only ticket dooshes, and let the cooperative folks move on with a warning.

Once again, what fun would that be?

More fun than getting a ticket and having to take a day off from work to go fight it? Though I guess if this is what amounts to fun in your life then you should just keep on doing what you do.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I usually don't bother but had some free time to play around with.

Shown by the lack of insight provided.

link to any post from you that has been insightful?

Once in awhile you get shown the light in the strangest places if you look at it right.

Well I ain't often right but I've never been wrongseldom turns out the way it does in the song.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

What 'cha gonna call that pretty baby?

You must call it one thing or another.

This one parted water, that one walked upon

Perhaps I'll call this child a Rose of Sharon

What's to be the ground that child walks upon?

Will it be solid rock or shifting sand?

Think I'll set him down upon free highways

Think I'll bring him up to walk the land

I think I'll call him just another stranger

Believe I'll call him knocking at your door

Asking you for shelter from the lightning

Space to rest upon your kitchen floor

Will he be a man of constant sorrow?

Born to beg a coat against the storm?

Or will he want a house with many pillars?

And fire for the night to keep him warm?

And if a stranger comes for troubled shelter

With hounds and torchlight on his midnight trail

Will he find a moment free of madness there?

And ears that still can hear to tell his tale?

Then you could call that child the Rock of Ages

You could call him raft upon the flood

He has been the face of many races

He has been the palace in the blood

And if that child should end up in a prison

As sometimes chance will deal to honest men

One room is like another to a stranger

Any man of worth will be his friend

Now what you gonna call that pretty baby?

You must call it one thing or another

Think I'll call him flame out on the water

Think I'll call him shore between the sea

Drop him on the rocks and he will shatter

Cut him with a blade and he will bleed

Plant him in the ground, he will rise up again

Sometimes as a flower, sometimes a reed

What you gonna call that pretty baby?

You must call him one thing or another

This one parted water, that one walked upon

Perhaps I'll call this child a Rose of Sharon

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Defendant relies heavily on the fact that Duran was making obscene gestures toward him and yelling profanities in Spanish while traveling along a rural Arizona highway. We cannot, of course, condone Duran’s conduct; it was boorish, crass and, initially at least, unjustified. Our hard-working law enforcement officers surely deserve better treatment from members of the public. But disgraceful as Duran’s behavior may have been, it was not illegal; criticism of the police is not a crime.

[T]he First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers…

The freedom of individuals to oppose or challenge police action verbally without thereby risking arrest is one important characteristic by which we distinguish ourselves from a police state…

Thus, while police, no less than anyone else, may resent having obscene words and gestures directed at them, they may not exercise the awesome power at their disposal to punish individuals for conduct that is not merely lawful, but protected by the First Amendment.

Inarticulate and crude as Duran’s conduct may have been, it represented an expression of disapproval toward a police officer with whom he had just had a run-in. As such, it fell squarely within the protective umbrella of the First Amendment and any action to punish or deter such speech–such as stopping or hassling the speaker–is categorically prohibited by the Constitution…

No matter how peculiar, abrasive, unruly or distasteful a person’s conduct may be, it cannot justify a police stop unless it suggests that some specific crime has been, or is about to be, committed, or that there is an imminent danger to persons or property.

-- Judge Alex Kozinski, Duran v. City of Douglas, 904 F.2d 1372 (1990).

It's hard to put it any better than that.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Radley Balko's column:

The Henry Louis Gates "Teaching Moment"

Put the race talk aside: the issue here is abuse of police power, and misplaced deference to authority

Radley Balko | July 27, 2009

The arrest of Harvard African-American Studies Professor Henry Louis Gates has certainly got everyone talking. Unfortunately, everyone's talking about the wrong issue.

Responding to a 911 call from a woman who observed Gates prying open the door to his own home, Cambridge, Massachusetts police Sgt. James Crowley confronted Gates, and asked him to prove his residency. What happened next is disputed, but it now seems clear that Gates mistakenly presumed that Crowley had racially profiled him, and hurled a barrage of invective at Crowley in response. Crowey has since been backed up by other officers, some of them black, and it turns out he was appointed to teach a clinic on profiling by a black former Boston police commissioner.

This has given law-and-order conservatives cause to crow: A liberal academic and friend of President Barack Obama wrongly accuses a cop of racial prejudice. None of this means racial profiling doesn't exist (law-and-order types seem torn between arguing that profiling is a myth, and arguing that it works). It just means that the story in Cambridge was about something else.

The conversation we ought to be having in response to the July 16 incident and its heated aftermath isn't about race, it's about police arrest powers, and the right to criticize armed agents of the government.

By any account of what happened—Gates', Crowleys', or some version in between—Gates should never have been arrested. "Contempt of cop," as it's sometimes called, isn't a crime. Or at least it shouldn't be. It may be impolite, but mouthing off to police is protected speech, all the more so if your anger and insults are related to a perceived violation of your rights. The "disorderly conduct" charge for which Gates was arrested was intended to prevent riots, not to prevent cops from enduring insults. Crowley is owed an apology for being portrayed as a racist, but he ought to be disciplined for making a wrongful arrest.

He won't be, of course. And that's ultimately the scandal that will endure long after the political furor dies down. The power to forcibly detain a citizen is an extraordinary one. It's taken far too lightly, and is too often abused. And that abuse certainly occurs against black people, but not only against black people. American cops seem to have increasingly little tolerance for people who talk back, even merely to inquire about their rights.

In a locally prominent case from April 2008, a friend of mine named Brooke Oberwetter was arrested at the Thomas Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C. for, essentially, dancing. Oberwetter and other libertarians had gathered at the memorial to quirkily celebrate Jefferson's birthday by silently dancing to their iPods. When National Park Police asked the group to leave, Oberwetter hesitated, stopping to ask one officer to explain what laws or rules they had violated. He arrested her, on the charge of "interfering with an agency function," a vague charge similar to Gates' alleged public disturbance. Oberwetter was never tried, though she was handcuffed and detained for several hours. She has since filed a civil rights lawsuit against the officer and the Park Police. Oberwetter wasn't profiled: She's white, female, and the daughter of a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia.

In the wake of both Gates and Obama escalating the arrest into a national debate about race, too many conservatives took the instinctively authoritarian tack represented here by Washington Post staff writer Neely Tucker:

One of the common-sense rules of life can be summed up this way: Don't Mess With Cops.

It doesn't matter if you are right, wrong, at home or on the street, or if you are white, black, Hispanic, Jewish, Muslim or whatever. When an armed law enforcement officer tells you to cease and desist, the wise person (a) ceases and (b) desists.

The End.

Perhaps on an individual level, this is sound advice. As a general rule, you ought not provoke someone carrying a gun, whether your criticism is justified or not. As a broader sentiment, however, it shows a dangerous level of deference to the government agents in whom we entrust a massive amount of power. And it comes awfully close to writing a blank check for police misconduct.If there's a teachable moment to extract from Gates' arrest, it's that arrest powers should be limited to actual crimes. Instead, the emerging lesson seems to be that you should capitulate to police, all the time, right or wrong. That's unfortunate, because there are plenty of instances where you shouldn't.

The most obvious case where deference to authority can be counter-productive—both in practice and in principle—is when police attempt an unlawful search or seizure of your person and property. But there are plenty of other instances as well, particularly with the spread of information technology.

Photographing or videotaping police ought to be a protected form of expression under any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution. Yet at the website Photography Is Not a Crime, photographer Carlos Miller has tracked dozens of cases in which police have unlawfully demanded someone cease photographing on-duty cops. Typically, police demand photographers hand over their cameras, and those who refuse are often arrested. In some of the cases, the preserved video or photographs have vindicated a defendant, or revealed police misconduct. Miller started the site after he himself was wrongly arrested for photographing police officers in Miami.

A week before the Gates incident, the NAACP launched a new website where users can upload video, photos, and text accounts of police misconduct from their cell phones. Just days before Gates was arrested, Philadelphia newspapers reported on a local cop who was captured by a convenience store's security video brutally assaulting a woman who had been in a car accident with his son. He then arrested her and charged her with assaulting him. The officer then demanded the store clerk turn over surveillance video of his attack. The clerk says other officers made subsequent demands to turn over or destroy the video. To his credit, the clerk refused. The video vindicated the woman. The officer has since been suspended.

After Oakland police officer Johannes Mehserle shot and killed subway passenger Oscar Grant at point blank range last New Year's Day, police attempted to confiscate cell phone photos and videos of the shooting. Fortunately,

 

[Gigantomachia]

Hey Gigantomachia - instead of acting like a doosh when a cop pulls you over for speeding why not cooperate? Most cops I know only ticket dooshes, and let the cooperative folks move on with a warning.

Once again, what fun would that be?

More fun than getting a ticket and having to take a day off from work to go fight it? Though I guess if this is what amounts to fun in your life then you should just keep on doing what you do.

Rock and roll!

 

[Gigantomachia]

Ok, this has been a blast, but I have to grade papers.Thanks for morning entertainment!!

make sure you stop being a girly-man and give the next cop you see the business!!!

I think you missed the point.Parrotheads calling others girly

 

[Gigantomachia]

Radley Balko's column:

The Henry Louis Gates "Teaching Moment"

Put the race talk aside: the issue here is abuse of police power, and misplaced deference to authority

Radley Balko | July 27, 2009

What we owe law enforcement is vigilant oversight and accountability, not mindless deference and capitulation. Whether or not Henry Louis Gates was racially profiled last week doesn't change any of that.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Radley Balko's column:

This deference to police at the expense of the policed is misplaced. Put a government worker behind a desk and give him the power to regulate, and conservatives will wax at length about public choice theory, bureaucratic pettiness, and the trappings of power. And rightly so. But put a government worker behind a badge, strap a gun to his waist, and give him the power to detain, use force, and kill, and those lessons somehow no longer apply.

 

[Thorn]

All I tell them is to know their rights. For example, you do not have to roll your window down and let the cops look in. All you have to legally do is hand them your license and auto info. If they write you a ticket all you have to do is open the window enough to slid in their ticket machine, sign it, and hand it back. What amazes me is that cops take offense when I do the legally required actions. Either they do not know the law or they are on some ego trip, either way, my point is simply that I am enforcing my rights. Whether or not that makes the cops job more difficult is beside the point. What is important is that we be allowed protection under the law, even if in response to breaking the law. I don't make the rules.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Radley Balko's column:

This deference to police at the expense of the policed is misplaced. Put a government worker behind a desk and give him the power to regulate, and conservatives will wax at length about public choice theory, bureaucratic pettiness, and the trappings of power. And rightly so. But put a government worker behind a badge, strap a gun to his waist, and give him the power to detain, use force, and kill, and those lessons somehow no longer apply.

 

[Bogeys]

Defendant relies heavily on the fact that Duran was making obscene gestures toward him and yelling profanities in Spanish while traveling along a rural Arizona highway. We cannot, of course, condone Duran’s conduct; it was boorish, crass and, initially at least, unjustified. Our hard-working law enforcement officers surely deserve better treatment from members of the public. But disgraceful as Duran’s behavior may have been, it was not illegal; criticism of the police is not a crime.

[T]he First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers…

The freedom of individuals to oppose or challenge police action verbally without thereby risking arrest is one important characteristic by which we distinguish ourselves from a police state…

Thus, while police, no less than anyone else, may resent having obscene words and gestures directed at them, they may not exercise the awesome power at their disposal to punish individuals for conduct that is not merely lawful, but protected by the First Amendment.

Inarticulate and crude as Duran’s conduct may have been, it represented an expression of disapproval toward a police officer with whom he had just had a run-in. As such, it fell squarely within the protective umbrella of the First Amendment and any action to punish or deter such speech–such as stopping or hassling the speaker–is categorically prohibited by the Constitution…

No matter how peculiar, abrasive, unruly or distasteful a person’s conduct may be, it cannot justify a police stop unless it suggests that some specific crime has been, or is about to be, committed, or that there is an imminent danger to persons or property.

-- Judge Alex Kozinski, Duran v. City of Douglas, 904 F.2d 1372 (1990).It's hard to put it any better than that.

The only problem I have with this is that this high-minded judge wouldn't tolerate any of that in his court room. Judges tend to have double standards on this kind of thing, he wouldn't put up with someone calling him a racist, calling him a ##### or flipping him off repeatedly in his court after he warned them to be quiet. I don't like cops that abuse their authority anymore than anyone else does, but I think some people have unreasonable expectations of how much they should have to put up with.

 

[Gigantomachia]

All I tell them is to know their rights. For example, you do not have to roll your window down and let the cops look in. All you have to legally do is hand them your license and auto info. If they write you a ticket all you have to do is open the window enough to slid in their ticket machine, sign it, and hand it back. What amazes me is that cops take offense when I do the legally required actions. Either they do not know the law or they are on some ego trip, either way, my point is simply that I am enforcing my rights. Whether or not that makes the cops job more difficult is beside the point. What is important is that we be allowed protection under the law, even if in response to breaking the law. I don't make the rules.

I know uh.

 

[Gigantomachia]

Let me just add that I have been meaning to say bravo on the thread title. Housing While Black

 

[Thorn]

Defendant relies heavily on the fact that Duran was making obscene gestures toward him and yelling profanities in Spanish while traveling along a rural Arizona highway. We cannot, of course, condone Duran’s conduct; it was boorish, crass and, initially at least, unjustified. Our hard-working law enforcement officers surely deserve better treatment from members of the public. But disgraceful as Duran’s behavior may have been, it was not illegal; criticism of the police is not a crime.

[T]he First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers…

The freedom of individuals to oppose or challenge police action verbally without thereby risking arrest is one important characteristic by which we distinguish ourselves from a police state…

Thus, while police, no less than anyone else, may resent having obscene words and gestures directed at them, they may not exercise the awesome power at their disposal to punish individuals for conduct that is not merely lawful, but protected by the First Amendment.

Inarticulate and crude as Duran’s conduct may have been, it represented an expression of disapproval toward a police officer with whom he had just had a run-in. As such, it fell squarely within the protective umbrella of the First Amendment and any action to punish or deter such speech–such as stopping or hassling the speaker–is categorically prohibited by the Constitution…

No matter how peculiar, abrasive, unruly or distasteful a person’s conduct may be, it cannot justify a police stop unless it suggests that some specific crime has been, or is about to be, committed, or that there is an imminent danger to persons or property.

-- Judge Alex Kozinski, Duran v. City of Douglas, 904 F.2d 1372 (1990).It's hard to put it any better than that.

The only problem I have with this is that this high-minded judge wouldn't tolerate any of that in his court room. Judges tend to have double standards on this kind of thing, he wouldn't put up with someone calling him a racist, calling him a ##### or flipping him off repeatedly in his court after he warned them to be quiet. I don't like cops that abuse their authority anymore than anyone else does, but I think some people have unreasonable expectations of how much they should have to put up with.

That and the fact that the above case refers to a police stop, which is different from the situation we're talking about.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The only problem I have with this is that this high-minded judge wouldn't tolerate any of that in his court room. Judges tend to have double standards on this kind of thing, he wouldn't put up with someone calling him a racist, calling him a ##### or flipping him off repeatedly in his court after he warned them to be quiet. I don't like cops that abuse their authority anymore than anyone else does, but I think some people have unreasonable expectations of how much they should have to put up with.

So because contempt of court is an actual offense, you think contempt of cop should be as well?(Edited to rephrase.)

 

[Thorn]

MT>I see your point but I wonder - where would you draw the line on tumultuous behavior in front of bystanders, who may become more agitated the more police allow the rant to go on? I think cops are trained to control the scene; err on the side of taking someone in for an admittedly weak DC charge - isn't that better than waiting until you have 4 or 5 bystanders joining the fray and shouting about racist pig cops. Just seems like things can escalate quickly and dangerously.

 

[Bogeys]

The only problem I have with this is that this high-minded judge wouldn't tolerate any of that in his court room. Judges tend to have double standards on this kind of thing, he wouldn't put up with someone calling him a racist, calling him a ##### or flipping him off repeatedly in his court after he warned them to be quiet. I don't like cops that abuse their authority anymore than anyone else does, but I think some people have unreasonable expectations of how much they should have to put up with.

So because contempt of court is an actual offense, you think contempt of cop should be as well?(Edited to rephrase.)

Not really, I just think it is funny that what you posted has a judge waxing poetic that public servants should put up with this kind of thing but that he wouldn't put up with it (and the law backs him) in his role as a public servant. Of course I have never been in his court so I could be wrong and he does, but I would bet against it.

 

[djmich]

The only problem I have with this is that this high-minded judge wouldn't tolerate any of that in his court room. Judges tend to have double standards on this kind of thing, he wouldn't put up with someone calling him a racist, calling him a ##### or flipping him off repeatedly in his court after he warned them to be quiet. I don't like cops that abuse their authority anymore than anyone else does, but I think some people have unreasonable expectations of how much they should have to put up with.

So because contempt of court is an actual offense, you think contempt of cop should be as well?(Edited to rephrase.)

I'm sure you have a very good answer for this...but why not?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The only problem I have with this is that this high-minded judge wouldn't tolerate any of that in his court room. Judges tend to have double standards on this kind of thing, he wouldn't put up with someone calling him a racist, calling him a ##### or flipping him off repeatedly in his court after he warned them to be quiet. I don't like cops that abuse their authority anymore than anyone else does, but I think some people have unreasonable expectations of how much they should have to put up with.

So because contempt of court is an actual offense, you think contempt of cop should be as well?(Edited to rephrase.)

I'm sure you have a very good answer for this...but why not?

People's rights in public are quite different from people's rights in a courtroom. A courtroom is for getting business done. The public is for whatever people want it to be for.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Defendant relies heavily on the fact that Duran was making obscene gestures toward him and yelling profanities in Spanish while traveling along a rural Arizona highway. We cannot, of course, condone Duran’s conduct; it was boorish, crass and, initially at least, unjustified. Our hard-working law enforcement officers surely deserve better treatment from members of the public. But disgraceful as Duran’s behavior may have been, it was not illegal; criticism of the police is not a crime.

[T]he First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers…

The freedom of individuals to oppose or challenge police action verbally without thereby risking arrest is one important characteristic by which we distinguish ourselves from a police state…

Thus, while police, no less than anyone else, may resent having obscene words and gestures directed at them, they may not exercise the awesome power at their disposal to punish individuals for conduct that is not merely lawful, but protected by the First Amendment.

Inarticulate and crude as Duran’s conduct may have been, it represented an expression of disapproval toward a police officer with whom he had just had a run-in. As such, it fell squarely within the protective umbrella of the First Amendment and any action to punish or deter such speech–such as stopping or hassling the speaker–is categorically prohibited by the Constitution…

No matter how peculiar, abrasive, unruly or distasteful a person’s conduct may be, it cannot justify a police stop unless it suggests that some specific crime has been, or is about to be, committed, or that there is an imminent danger to persons or property.

-- Judge Alex Kozinski, Duran v. City of Douglas, 904 F.2d 1372 (1990).It's hard to put it any better than that.

The only problem I have with this is that this high-minded judge wouldn't tolerate any of that in his court room. Judges tend to have double standards on this kind of thing, he wouldn't put up with someone calling him a racist, calling him a ##### or flipping him off repeatedly in his court after he warned them to be quiet. I don't like cops that abuse their authority anymore than anyone else does, but I think some people have unreasonable expectations of how much they should have to put up with.

That and the fact that the above case refers to a police stop, which is different from the situation we're talking about.

Do you contend that the First Amendment applies differently in each scenario?The reason MA courts have construed the disorderly conduct statute to require fighting words is that they (along with commercial fraud, etc.) are not protected speech under the First Amendment.

Kozinski's opinion is not binding in Massachusetts, but it's the same federal constitution he's writing about, and he eloquently nailed why people can't be arrested for spewing protected speech.

 

[djmich]

The only problem I have with this is that this high-minded judge wouldn't tolerate any of that in his court room. Judges tend to have double standards on this kind of thing, he wouldn't put up with someone calling him a racist, calling him a ##### or flipping him off repeatedly in his court after he warned them to be quiet. I don't like cops that abuse their authority anymore than anyone else does, but I think some people have unreasonable expectations of how much they should have to put up with.

So because contempt of court is an actual offense, you think contempt of cop should be as well?(Edited to rephrase.)

I'm sure you have a very good answer for this...but why not?

People's rights in public are quite different from people's rights in a courtroom. A courtroom is for getting business done. The public is for whatever people want it to be for.

Are the police not also trying to "get business done". By the nature of their job, they cannot sit in a courtroom and wait for business to come to them, they have to interact in the public. As an extension of the justice system, and one that puts themselves in more dangerous situations, why shouldn't they be afforded similar protections as the guy who gets to sit in the courtroom.

 

[Thorn]

Defendant relies heavily on the fact that Duran was making obscene gestures toward him and yelling profanities in Spanish while traveling along a rural Arizona highway. We cannot, of course, condone Duran’s conduct; it was boorish, crass and, initially at least, unjustified. Our hard-working law enforcement officers surely deserve better treatment from members of the public. But disgraceful as Duran’s behavior may have been, it was not illegal; criticism of the police is not a crime.

[T]he First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers…

The freedom of individuals to oppose or challenge police action verbally without thereby risking arrest is one important characteristic by which we distinguish ourselves from a police state…

Thus, while police, no less than anyone else, may resent having obscene words and gestures directed at them, they may not exercise the awesome power at their disposal to punish individuals for conduct that is not merely lawful, but protected by the First Amendment.

Inarticulate and crude as Duran’s conduct may have been, it represented an expression of disapproval toward a police officer with whom he had just had a run-in. As such, it fell squarely within the protective umbrella of the First Amendment and any action to punish or deter such speech–such as stopping or hassling the speaker–is categorically prohibited by the Constitution…

No matter how peculiar, abrasive, unruly or distasteful a person’s conduct may be, it cannot justify a police stop unless it suggests that some specific crime has been, or is about to be, committed, or that there is an imminent danger to persons or property.

-- Judge Alex Kozinski, Duran v. City of Douglas, 904 F.2d 1372 (1990).It's hard to put it any better than that.

The only problem I have with this is that this high-minded judge wouldn't tolerate any of that in his court room. Judges tend to have double standards on this kind of thing, he wouldn't put up with someone calling him a racist, calling him a ##### or flipping him off repeatedly in his court after he warned them to be quiet. I don't like cops that abuse their authority anymore than anyone else does, but I think some people have unreasonable expectations of how much they should have to put up with.

That and the fact that the above case refers to a police stop, which is different from the situation we're talking about.

Do you contend that the First Amendment applies differently in each scenario?The reason MA courts have construed the disorderly conduct statute to require fighting words is that they (along with commercial fraud, etc.) are not protected speech under the First Amendment.

Kozinski's opinion is not binding in Massachusetts, but it's the same federal constitution he's writing about, and he eloquently nailed why people can't be arrested for spewing protected speech.

Sure. If someone drives by an officer and shouts out "Officer Smith is a racist pig," it is a different scenario than shouting that while a crowd has gathered and Officer Smith is trying to keep a potential crime scene under control.

 

[The Ghost of Common]

Was going to jump back in this thread, but wanted to make sure timchochet was done in here for good.

Someone PM me when he has stopped with his nonsense.

 

[HellToupee]

Experience has proven my point numerous times.But believe whatever gets you through the night.

I'll trust friends & family members that are in law enforcement. They get extra $$$ to show up in court and to put a sad face on people like you

 

[Parrothead]

Ok, this has been a blast, but I have to grade papers.Thanks for morning entertainment!!

make sure you stop being a girly-man and give the next cop you see the business!!!

I think you missed the point.Parrotheads calling others girly

says you through your nearly closed car window afraid big bad lowly public servant policeman is gonna beat you up?

 

[Joseph]

Radley Balko's column:

This deference to police at the expense of the policed is misplaced. Put a government worker behind a desk and give him the power to regulate, and conservatives will wax at length about public choice theory, bureaucratic pettiness, and the trappings of power. And rightly so. But put a government worker behind a badge, strap a gun to his waist, and give him the power to detain, use force, and kill, and those lessons somehow no longer apply.

But the charges were dropped right? The system worked.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Radley Balko's column:

The Henry Louis Gates "Teaching Moment"

Put the race talk aside: the issue here is abuse of police power, and misplaced deference to authority

Radley Balko | July 27, 2009

In the wake of both Gates and Obama escalating the arrest into a national debate about race, too many conservatives took the instinctively authoritarian tack represented here by Washington Post staff writer Neely Tucker:

One of the common-sense rules of life can be summed up this way: Don't Mess With Cops.

It doesn't matter if you are right, wrong, at home or on the street, or if you are white, black, Hispanic, Jewish, Muslim or whatever. When an armed law enforcement officer tells you to cease and desist, the wise person (a) ceases and (b) desists.

The End.

Perhaps on an individual level, this is sound advice. As a general rule, you ought not provoke someone carrying a gun, whether your criticism is justified or not. As a broader sentiment, however, it shows a dangerous level of deference to the government agents in whom we entrust a massive amount of power. And it comes awfully close to writing a blank check for police misconduct.

This seems so TRUE to me that it always surprises me a little when others don't see it this way.

 

[zDragon]

The only problem I have with this is that this high-minded judge wouldn't tolerate any of that in his court room. Judges tend to have double standards on this kind of thing, he wouldn't put up with someone calling him a racist, calling him a ##### or flipping him off repeatedly in his court after he warned them to be quiet. I don't like cops that abuse their authority anymore than anyone else does, but I think some people have unreasonable expectations of how much they should have to put up with.

So because contempt of court is an actual offense, you think contempt of cop should be as well?(Edited to rephrase.)

I'm sure you have a very good answer for this...but why not?

People's rights in public are quite different from people's rights in a courtroom. A courtroom is for getting business done. The public is for whatever people want it to be for.

This is not true. There are a lot of restrictions on what an individual or group can do in public.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

But the charges were dropped right? The system worked.

he was still detained for 4 hours or so. If the arrest was illegal and unconstitutional, seems that he should be able to sue...which I'm sure people here would get really upset about.

 

[jonessed]

Radley Balko's column:

The Henry Louis Gates "Teaching Moment"

Put the race talk aside: the issue here is abuse of police power, and misplaced deference to authority

Radley Balko | July 27, 2009

In the wake of both Gates and Obama escalating the arrest into a national debate about race, too many conservatives took the instinctively authoritarian tack represented here by Washington Post staff writer Neely Tucker:

One of the common-sense rules of life can be summed up this way: Don't Mess With Cops.

It doesn't matter if you are right, wrong, at home or on the street, or if you are white, black, Hispanic, Jewish, Muslim or whatever. When an armed law enforcement officer tells you to cease and desist, the wise person (a) ceases and (b) desists.

The End.

Perhaps on an individual level, this is sound advice. As a general rule, you ought not provoke someone carrying a gun, whether your criticism is justified or not. As a broader sentiment, however, it shows a dangerous level of deference to the government agents in whom we entrust a massive amount of power. And it comes awfully close to writing a blank check for police misconduct.

This seems so TRUE to me that it always surprises me a little when others don't see it this way.

We generally do give officers a blank check, especially in regions with a detached sense of community. In my experience the best schools, police officers, public officials come from communities that wield their power to elect and remove in a united fashion. Fractured communities have very little power. As we have moved from rural communities to urban we have deferred a lot of our power and decision making to the big black box that is government.Crowley was on the bubble of abusing his power in my opinion. It's difficult to know definitively though and I don't believe it had anything to do with race.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

My personal take on this general subject is that Citizens have the right to be critical of any of their government, and this most certainly includes the police. They have a nearly unlimited right to criticize the police generally and individual officers specifically. The right covers both critcism at a distance such as in editorials, on blogs, at public meetings and rallys, and up close and personal so long as they are not interfering with the officer in the performance of their lawful duty or inciting an immediate or immenent violent or disorderly reponse.

Unfortunately most do not exercise their rights with thought or restraint and when they are not subject of immediate scrutiney such as at a town meeting. They generally only choose to do so when they are about to be arrested or one of their friends or family members is. They are heated, less than thoughtful, and very prone to crossing important lines.

It is unfortunate that some believe their rights come with no responsibilities and they wish to play a game of gotcha with the cops. These people say they have a right to expect super human forebearance from humans. (I leave it to others to define how sensible that is) They then set out to prove that cops are only too human by acting inhuman themselves. When they eventually get the very reaction they are seeking they feel vindicated unless you call them on their actions, because they themselves do not welcome criticism, which is kind of interesting.

All of this is fun, but this unneccessary dance comes at the expense of rights of others. Do I and others not have a right to not see resources wasted by juvenile and repetitive expressions. The resources wasted in these matters are actually possibly needed elsewhere.

Please, I encourage the challenge of authority, but in an orderly fashion. Think before acting, do not challenge authority at the point of exercise of it by taunting or defying, rather ask clarifying questions seeking the limits of the authority and be prepared to sue after the immediate situation is resolved. You do indeed have rights, but you are not a judge ruling on your rights at the scene of an arrest and over riding the officer. Your interpretations of your rights or your own behavior will ultimately not be the question as tha tis necessarily subjective and self serving. Rather an objective standard applied after the fact is really the only way that we can balance your rights with society's.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Do I and others not have a right to not see resources wasted by juvenile and repetitive expressions. The resources wasted in these matters are actually possibly needed elsewhere.

All the more reason to be against wrongful arrests.

 

[Nigel]

Do I and others not have a right to not see resources wasted by juvenile and repetitive expressions. The resources wasted in these matters are actually possibly needed elsewhere.

All the more reason to be against wrongful arrests uncooperative, unappreciative, belligerent blowhards.

this

 

[Christo]

Until someone challenges the law and has it written such that the interpretation is narrowed, it will continue to be against the law to act like an asse hole to a cop.

This has already happened. See the case I linked to a while back.

And that case said that fighting words or threats of violence or tumultuous behavior satisfied the statute. The use of the connector "or" implies that the tumultuous behavior requirement includes something other than fighting words or threats of violence. Otherwise, it would be mere surplusage. And as we all know, the courts abhor surplusage.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Unfortunately most do not exercise their rights with thought or restraint and when they are not subject of immediate scrutiney such as at a town meeting. They generally only choose to do so when they are about to be arrested or one of their friends or family members is. They are heated, less than thoughtful, and very prone to crossing important lines.It is unfortunate that some believe their rights come with no responsibilities and they wish to play a game of gotcha with the cops. These people say they have a right to expect super human forebearance from humans. (I leave it to others to define how sensible that is) They then set out to prove that cops are only too human by acting inhuman themselves. When they eventually get the very reaction they are seeking they feel vindicated unless you call them on their actions, because they themselves do not welcome criticism, which is kind of interesting.

Cops are human beings, just like everybody else. When you go out of your way to be an #######, fallible human beings tend to be #######s in return. For example, I think we all understand that if I call up some company's customer service line, I'm much more likely to get the help I need if I'm polite than if I start swearing at the customer service rep. An error on a banking statement is going to get cleared up faster if I'm nice to my teller than if I make a scene. A conflict with my neighbor stands a better chance of being resolved if I start off by being neighborly than if I start with personal insults. So lo and behold, when a person pushes a cop too far, its not terribly surprising to see the cop make life difficult for the guy in return. This doesn't really have anything special to do with police as much as its just an application of Human Nature 101.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Radley Balko's column:

This deference to police at the expense of the policed is misplaced. Put a government worker behind a desk and give him the power to regulate, and conservatives will wax at length about public choice theory, bureaucratic pettiness, and the trappings of power. And rightly so. But put a government worker behind a badge, strap a gun to his waist, and give him the power to detain, use force, and kill, and those lessons somehow no longer apply.

But the charges were dropped right? The system worked.

Worked is sort of a stretch.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Cops should be held to a higher standard. They should not be held to inhuman standards. The arbitrar of those standards shoud be the courts not some drunk or indignant person about to be arrested.

 

[timschochet]

Was going to jump back in this thread, but wanted to make sure timchochet was done in here for good.Someone PM me when he has stopped with his nonsense.

He's awfully annoying, isn't he?

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Cops should be held to a higher standard. They should not be held to inhuman standards. The arbitrar of those standards shoud be the courts not some drunk or indignant person about to be arrested.

Actually the police officers themselves should know their limits and work within them or find other work. Also, no one is suggesting they be held to inhuman standards.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Cops should be held to a higher standard. They should not be held to inhuman standards. The arbitrar of those standards shoud be the courts not some drunk or indignant person about to be arrested.

Actually the police officers themselves should know their limits and work within them or find other work. Also, no one is suggesting they be held to inhuman standards.

Actually many here are suggesting precisely that they be held to an inhuman standard, though they will not be so forthright and honest and they put it in other terms because they are dishonest with themselves as to what they are doing. Instead they suggest that officers toughen up or leave the force. Of course these folks don't try to staff these forces with the pay available and the obsticles they have condoned. Here's the thing. Some Citizens today view themselves as citadels of unassailable rights. They believe that they are the final arbitrar of the officer's power. Unless they give the officer permission to arrest them they feel the officer has exceeded his bounds. Of course officers have mandates and those mandates are to respect rights and to enforce laws. Sometimes that means not seeking the aquiesence of citizens who are often drunken, foolish, obnoxious, and or dangerous rapacious criminals (sometimes these wilely criminals even lie to officers claiming to be rightfully indignant citizens and demanding they be released. Imagine.). We have courts. They will determine the correctness of the officer's procedures and their respect of your rights in context of the law, not simply the expressed strength of offended dignities.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I've often felt that some would not be satisfied unless each police cruiser towed behind it a judge, up on his bench, ready to make rulings as to rights at the scene. If they ever institute that program I hope to get an appellate job, which I guess would mean I get towed out to the scene two minutes later by the Sgt. or Supervisor.

 

[Fennis]

I've often felt that some would not be satisfied unless each police cruiser towed behind it a judge, up on his bench, ready to make rulings as to rights at the scene. If they ever institute that program I hope to get an appellate job, which I guess would mean I get towed out to the scene two minutes later by the Sgt. or Supervisor.

Sounds like an Eagles game to me.

 

[TexanFan02]

I've often felt that some would not be satisfied unless each police cruiser towed behind it a judge, up on his bench, ready to make rulings as to rights at the scene. If they ever institute that program I hope to get an appellate job, which I guess would mean I get towed out to the scene two minutes later by the Sgt. or Supervisor.

Wouldn't work. You'd just get claims of racial adjudicating to go along with profiling.