[Lt. Weinberg] “I strenuously object?” Is that how it works? Hm? “Objection.” “Overruled.” “Oh, no, no, no. No, I STRENUOUSLY object.” “Oh. Well, if you strenuously object then I should take some time to reconsider.” [/Lt. Weinberg]
So, a Priest, a Rabbi and a Nun in a thong bikini walk into to a bar. The bartender says “What, is this a joke?”
Someone asked earlier why the law enforcement officer was the only one to have injuries. He wasn’t. If you look back at yojimbo’s news link in post 159, it states
One of the claims in this thread that annoys me the most is that we can’t expect law enforcement officers to know the law and that it’s not their job. Well, of course it’s their job. What do they enforce? The law. How can they enforce what they don’t know?
According to this source, there is a law in Ashville against sneezing on city streets. (I hope Officer Scarborough is not detained very long in this case. He has more important duties to attend to.)
Keep in mind that there was more than one eye witness. While only one witness may have seen the officer kicking the door and breaking the glass, several other witnesses saw what happened when the conflict resumed outside: Sam York and a couple who went to the actual scene – and several of their roommates. What they have to say is not very supportive of the law enforcement officials.
There is also information about the “opinions” expressed on the flag. There is a photo of President Bush and two words: Out Now. Apparently somone in uniform has been cruising their house and was there the night of the arrest (according to some of the witnesses).
Sometimes reasonable people know the right time to peacefully resist laws when they have become unreasonable. I don’t always have my identification with me. It’s not as if I have a wallet in my pocket.
Besides, what if “they” want me to wear something to signal my identity – like a red hat or a Republican t-shirt or a yellow star-of-David?
Yes, and that officer was enforcing the law as it exists. I think the claim was that they can’t be expected to know the constitutionality of a given law. It works like this, from what I understand and others who know more about the law here have said: Someone makes a complaint or the officer sees evidence of an existing law being broken. He gives the offender a citation. The offender goes to court and fights the citation based on the unconstitutionality of the law. (In fact, this seems to me to be a golden opportunity for these folks to be sure this bad law is struck down in their state.)
Of course, as you say, there are ways to peacefully resist having the law brought down on them. I am not sure that is what happened here, but perhaps it is. That doesn’t mean that the officer was wrong in trying to write the citation in the first place…he enforces the law, the people resist the law. They are both doing their jobs as citizens in the roles they occupy.
What the officer should NOT do is decide for himself which statues he thinks fall under precedent and which do not…do you really want police officers doing that?
Yes. They do it all the time. There are many frivolous or obsolete statutes which law enforcement ignores as a matter of course.
frivolous and obsolete are not the same as unconstitutional.
No, the claim being made is that LEOs should not make the judicial decision of overturning laws before the courts actually do so. In this case, the cop knew exactly what the N.C. law was.
It’s easy in this case to say, Oh, the LEO should know that the SCOTUS overturned a similar law, so he should know that this law is unconstitutional. But the thing is, where do you draw the line? There is a continuum of laws that are “obviously” the same as laws ruled unconstitutional to laws that might be unconstitutional to laws that probably are not unconstitutional. Cops don’t make that decision.
cut - to penetrate with or as if with a sharp-edged instrument or object (gee, like - I dunno…BROKEN GLASS!!!)
lacerate - to tear roughly; mangle
Check a dictionary next time before you shoot your mouth off, you stupid fuck.
How nice for you. Since you don’t know the difference between a cut and a laceration, I don’t know how much stock to give your anecdote.
Buh, whaaa??? You, Miller, Button Jockey, and Monkey are the ones who keep fucking nitpicking it. Jesus Christ, you really haven’t figured out by this point that the cop was lying? The rest of us are past that.
The point is that cops do have discretion about what to cite or not cite and they already exercise that discretion every day. This is especially true of laws which are obsolete, trivial or (as in this case) already known to be patently unconstitional. It’s baloney to say this guy had no cloice or discretion about writing the citation. Of course he did.
People keep saying that the Deputy had no discretion, he had to enforce the law … but a LEO had already come out, and he didn’t enforce the law, so he must have used discretion, no?
w.
Right on Brother! Let’s stick it to the man. We’ll hold a sneeze in! We’ll clog the streets. We’ll block the doorways. We’ll fill the jails. We’ll show em what civil disobedience really means. Sneeze in! I’ll bring the pepper!
we’re on page what… 7? Can anybody take this thread seriously anymore?
Frankly, I’m a hell of a lot more concerned about the police officer who lives in my neighborhood, who told me himself that if someone he knows blows a .08 during a DUI check, he’ll let them go. If you don’t think LEOs use their own judgment in what laws to enforce, you’re very naive.
So, what would people think if NC had a not-lately-enforced law banning miscegenation? Would officers be totally justified in attempting to enforce it? What about a law requiring sterilization of “unfit” people? The former is a pure hypothetical, the latter law was on the books till four years ago.
Police are not mindless automatons. Regardless of whether you think there’s a technical legal basis for the citation, you can’t deny that officers can and do exercise discretion, and that attempting to enforce this law was rather stupid.
Of course they do, but as you point out yourself, they shouldn’t. Especially on the grounds that they believe it is unconstitutional, based on a court ruling about a different law.
What is preferable, to have these defunct and unenforceable laws on the books, or to have them removed? Maybe we’d be better off if the police didn’t decide for themselves what laws were worth enforcing, so that crap laws like these would get repealed. Repeal them, and you’re not going to get a deputy who maybe isn’t up on a 15 year old SCOTUS decision that affects an extremely rarely seen violation of a little used statute, trying to enforce said statute.
Discretion implies a choice is made, and “enforce” has to be one of the options. Once you say the officer should never enforce that particular law, discretion isn’t part of the picture, it’s now just a refusal to enforce law X.
Isn’t that what I said? A LEO can choose to make life difficult, and private citizens’ recourse is limited, and often cannot be immediately applied.
You don’t have to show an ID, all you have to do is verbally identify yourself to comply. You don’t even have to wear a red hat, a Republican t-shirt, or a star of David. Imagine that.
Why shouldn’t they? Of course they should. Who wants law enforcement by robots? Common sense has to play into it. I want cops to have the discretion not to give me a ticket if they don’t want to. What’s wrong with that? Are you saying cops should have no discretion at all and should never be able to let anything go? They should issue citations for miscegenation and sodomy and cohabitation? They should be forced to ticket married couples for engagining in oral sex? They should issue citations for oddball laws about walking backwards while eating peanuts? They should be forced to pull over every single car that’s going a mile over the speed limit?
If you took away their discretion, you’d paralyze them under an avalanche of idiotic and trivial violations, many of which are already not enforced precisely because they belong to a class of laws known to have been ruled unconstitutional. The world does not come to an end if the cops don’t issue citations for every single violation. Omimous warnings about cops deciding their own law is specious. We’re talking about giving them the necessary discretion to refrain from enforcement, not giving them powers to invent new laws.
Not to mention the retractable latching mechanism. I’ve cut my knuckles on those things when opening the mens’ room door at work.
You didn’t answer the question. Should police be allowed the discretion to ignore miscegenation laws? Should they be forced to arrest interracial couples on the street if the laws are still on the books?
And bear traps. Sometimes doors have bear traps, and perhaps when the Kuhns slammed the door on his exposed and fully extended and locked hand, their door bear trap deployed and nearly took his hand off.
Or, it could have happened just like the guy who saw it happen said it happened.