Police Deputy smashes into home, attacks family for flying flag upside down.

The BBQ Pit
181

Where the Hell do you get that? His injuries are completely consistent with Mr. Kuhn slamming the door on his arm and pressing down on the door. The deputy pulling his arm out of that are perfectly consistent with the “scrapes and cuts” referred to in the article.

We just don’t know.

My completely wild ass guess is that they’re both lying. The door was slammed on the deputies hand, causing injury. He then broke the window with a foreign object (probably a baton) to pursue the guy who just hurt his arm. Clusterfuck all the away around, but let’s not jump to conclusions. Let’s let the courts handle it. Or do you want to just say to hell with the courts, Diogenes?
On preview: I’m about to give up. You’re just too damn stupid, Diogenes. Explain to me why, oh why, you think it is a good idea for a member of the executive branch to make decisions reserved for the judicial?

182

[hijack]Anyone else getting this as one of the ads at the bottom of the page? If so, am I the only one who finds it somewhat funny in the context of the thread?[/hijack]

Troubled Teen Boys School
Boarding for Defiant Teen Boys
Academics, and Animal Training

183

Really? Have you never seen the Rodney King tape? How about the one of that cop trying to yank the woman out of her car while she’s still wearing her seatbelt?

You must sure be use to some extremely fragile glass. Who knows - maybe this couple did have the world’s most fragile glass in the windows on their door.

Fucker’s got some long arms if he can reach in a window that’s at shoulder height to unlock the door. Perhaps this couple had a full pane window in their front door, though.

184

This would be a great point, except Deborah Kuhn herself said

Honestly, if a deputy just showed you a statute, claiming that you violated it, locking yourself in your house when he asks for ID is not a clever move. Basically, it’s a move that’s going to guarantee a broken down door and a handcuffed trip to the station.

Like it or not, when a police officer states that you’ve violated a currently valid statute, and intends to issue a citation, refusing to cooperate is going to do nothing but ensure the rest of your day is thoroughly ruined.

185

You’re not keeping up with the thread. WE DO know. Scroll up and read Yojimbo’s post. There is now a disinterested witness (an Ace Hardwood guy working nearby) who is directly contradicting the deputy’s story. I’ll post the relevant quote again:

Keep up with the fucking thread, asshole. You’re spouting off without knwoing all the facts. How do you explain the witness (someone unconnected to the Kuhns) who says he saw the deputy smash the window himselfd? Is he lying too?

186

http://www.mountainx.com/news/2007/flagged_down_activists_arrested_in_row_over_protest_flag_allege_abuse_by_bu

I don’t know who Jimmy Stevenson is but he seems from the story to be a independent third party backing up the couples story. The other independent witnesses in that story also seem to be siding with the couple when it comes to the point of the cops going OTT. What you got?

187

Yup. Did they sentance those guilty-as-sin Duke lacross players yet?

188

It was not a valid statute and no, it does not give the deputy an excuse to break down the door and attack them. Moreover, if you think he would have been justified in breaking down their door and assaulting them because they wouldn’t give him their ID, then why did he lie about how he got into the house? Why did he lie about them slamming the door on his hand? Why should anything he says be taken at face value?

ETA, you got me on your first paragraph. I didn’t know (or I had forgotten) that the Kuhns had corroborated that part of the story.

189

You appear to be the one deciding that someone is guilty before they’ve been tried. The Kuhn’s are the only ones charged with any crimes.

190

My opinion is not based on a single thing he said, it’s based entirely on her account. Until the statute is ruled unconstitutional, or the legislature votes to remove it, it’s valid. There is no other way to decide which laws are valid and which are not. You of all people should be against the executive branch of government deciding on its own that a particular law shouldn’t be enforced.

191

For all practical purposes, the statute already HAS been ruled unconstutional. It has already been decided. The state has the discretion not to attempt to prosecute it and this appears to be the first time law enforcement has ever attempted to cite somebody for it. We’re all adults here. We can recognize selective enforcement when we see it, can wee not?

Do you think anyone in NC would attempt to write GWB a citation for autographing a flag (something he’s actually done – that’s not hypothetical)?

192

Allright, I’ll give you yojimbo’s post. I did miss that. (Although third party accounts… yada yada yada. we don’t really know…yada etc.) Again, it’s a clusterfuck all the way around. I’ve said that a few times in this thread, and by doing so I meant to imply that the deputy didn’t act exactly appropriately. It’s a side issue, though. I’m not trying to defend the deputy, per se, he may have abused his powers. I, and we, don’t know. What I am doing is refuting your bullshit arguments.

One specifically: Why should the deputy even think about the constitutionality of the law before he enforces it? I’ve asked the question several times. I don’t think you can answer it because even you know you’re wrong.

193

No, no it has not. We got courts remember? What are they for?

194

Hmm. So, Miller, what do you make of this? Seems a bit more like a cop losing his shit (e.g. trying to pull a woman out of the car while her seatbelt is still on), than a freak incident involving super-fragile glass and an iron fist.

195

Only to the fecal sloth with no reading comprehension. I merely think we should let the judicial process a bit more before jumping to conclusions.

196

Attention Lawyers: please tell me if this is right. If so,it might help clear some things up for Dio.

Any law on the books is given the presumption of being valid. If it goes to to Scotus, they may deem it unconstitutional and thereby invalid. But that pertains to that particular statute. Since similar statutes in many states are not identical, Scotus’s invalidating a statue in State A does not automatically invalidate a similar statute in State B, C or D. Legislators in those states will look at the Scotus ruling and, based on how similar they think the statute is to their own, may choose to strike the law from the books. But until that step is taken, the law is 100% valid an enforceable. If someone is subsequently prosecuted after a Scotus invalidation of a similar law, those people can seek to have the law they were prosecuted under invalidated, as well, using the previous Scotus decision as a strong precedent.

Is that right. If so, Dio, I hope that helps.

197

Stating the hypothetical as you did, you answered your own question. If an officer is beating your wife senseless or worse, raping her, you have not only the right, but the duty as a man and husband to put that fucker down. That’s the point, right there, where you’re allowed to defend yourself.

You’re not allowed to “defend” against being taken into lawful custody, no matter how far down the use of force continuum the arrest travels. For instance; police are allowed to use batons, OC or tazers when a subject resists with only their hands. It’s for the safety of everyone involved. These people were not being physically arrested, more accurately, taken into custody, they were being held in place while the citation was being written, running away with your fingers in your ears and slamming the door on an officer (in this case specifically) not only won’t work, it’s stupid.

As far as felonious assault; even THAT is a stretch. There’s no aggravating factor, no weapon involved that we know of (well, other than the door) and you can’t just evade lawful arrest because you think the cop MIGHT be a psychopath.

Methinks you need to wander over to the orange pot for a little while.

198

Actually, it does.

You acknowledge that the statute is on the books of North Carolina.

The deputy advises the couple he’s going to cite them for violation of that statute. At that point, they are being detained – non-custodial arrest, mind you. When they shut the door on the deputy, they commited the crime of resisting arrest.

Now, you seem to be arguing that because the Supreme Court invalidated other, similar laws in other states, this particular statute is similarly infirm, and should be treated by everyone – cops, courts, public – as though it simply didn’t exist.

That is not the rule, though. The fact that the Supreme Court has struck down similar laws in other states does not erase this law from the books. Legally speaking, it exists. It may be challenged, of course, by pointing out that the same rationale the Supreme Court used in Texas v. Johnson applies equally well to this law. But that challenge is made to a judge, in response to a citation… not to a deputy sheriff.

You also seem to hang your hat on how assholish the deputy is to enforce this, as though that has some value in determing how the law ought to work. This, too, is not the rule. You can imagine a cop pulling someone over for going one mile per hour over the speed limit. It’s never done, right? Yet you would agree, I hope, that the driver doesn’t have the legal right to slam his car door and refuse to accept the speeding ticket.

In my view, the deputy is probably lying and the couple probably telling the truth. But even accepting every word the couple says as true, they resisted arrest.

Now, it appears in North Carolina that a person is privileged to use force to resist an unlawful arrest. If this is the case, and I know nothing about North Carolina law to have an opinion one way or the other on the point, then it’s likely the couple can prevail on the charge of resisting arrest. But that, too, is an argument that must be made in court, as I’m almost certain that “unlawful arrest” will be an affirmative defense to the charge of resisting arrest – meaning that the burden to prove the unlawful arrest in this context will be on the couple. (I welcome correction on that point, of course).

199

What about third party accounts? Third party accounts are more reliable because they are disinterested. This flooring guy that was working nearby had no reason to lie and sounds like he’s pretty clear on what he saw.

Any time you want to start refuting something is fine with me.

The answer to the question is that they do it all the time. They have the discretion not to bother trying to enforce obsolete laws. Law enforcement had already been to this house and found nothing they thought they needed to cite. This deputy’s attempted citation appears like it might be the first attempt anyone’s ever made to enforce a statute that they all know has already been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The fact that the couple had already complied with removing the flag makes the selective citation even more transparent.

200

Yes.