This was exactly what I was thinking, too…the best solution to all of this is to get obsolete laws off the books, because as long as the laws exist, there will be instances where cops enforce them.
But he does. Reminding us of the marvelous foundations of our government is very positive. “Congress shall make no law abridging Freedom of Speech…”
Who said so? Our Founding Fathers – our government!
What’s more, the Fourteenth Amendment (our government at work again) guaranteed us due process. That protects the rights of the First Amendment from interference by state governments. Federal government trumps state government! (See footnote.)
An occasional post here is fine, too
I’m sure he will be grateful.
Nyah. Haven’t you noticed that he covers himself by also posting in discussions of Biblical interpretations and history?
That’s where the eyewitness disagrees with you. (See post 159 for the link.) He might have been a hippie though. And you know that those hippies always llie.
Source on Fourteenth Amendment:
The Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment (Bill of Rights | U.S. Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute) from interference by state governments. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV (Bill of Rights | U.S. Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute).
You must be confusing me with someone else. I’m PRO government. Maybe you’re thinking of Liberal?
I have no idea what you’re talking about. This is not any kind of representation of my views. What is my “side of the argument?” What “aspects” of government can I “not be bothered with?”
Ridiculous. For one thing, I post on a broad variety of subjects and the majority of my posts are not political. Even most of my posts which ARE political are not anti-government (maybe anti-Bush, but that’s something else). I want MORE government, not less. I’m a liberal. I want a nanny state, remember?
This is a total distortion of the facts.
This is a crock. First, the complaint was bullshit. A lot of complaints to the cops are bullshit. The cops are free to determine when a complaint is bullshit and that no action need be taken.
Secondly, the homeowners had already removed the flag, thereby dealing with the imaginary problem and no further action was warranted.
Thirdly, this was a statute which was already routinely being ignored by law enforcement because it was known to be unconstitutional and ultimately unenforceable. There is no “dereliction,” in declining to enforce an unenforceable or unconstitutional statute. LE does it all the time. LE had already done it in this particualr case.
Your characterization of the facts is idiotic. Using your logic, if a cop responds to a “complaint” about an interracial marriage, he would be “derelict” in his duty if he did not arrest them for violating any antiquated miscegenation laws that were still on the books.
The people actually were in violation of the statute, were they not? So, the complaint was not bullshit.
This has been pointed out to you before: if you are pulled over for speeding, the cop gives you a ticket when you are going 0mph. And I don’t know to what the degree any discretion he might have had went out the window after a complaint was filed.
I have seen no evidence that the statute was “routinely ignored”. I thought even the one time it was ignored the flag didn’t have all the stuff pinned to it. And I have seen no evidence to justify your additional claim that the officers who might have ignored it did so because they KNEW the statute to be unconstitutional. How do oyu know what the knew?
Let’s say it wouldn’t be a deriliction of his duty. I think a cop does have discretion, we agree on that. (Though I don’t know how much of it disappears when a complaint is filed by another party.) But “discretion” implies that he would be within his rights in a particular situation (say, a speeding ticket) to either issue the summons or not. Correct? The next question is what may tempt him to issue a citation or let you slide. Would you agree that being nice to the cop, polite, helpful, and not making it more difficult for him to do his job would increase the likelihood that he might exercise his discretion and let you slide? And that doing the opposite would have the opposite effect?
The statute was unconstitutional, therefore the complaint was bullshit. The complainer was not being injured. The complainer was hoping to be able to deprive someone else of the right to free speech. The complainer is the one who needs an ass-beating.
None. No discretion goes out the window just because a complant has been called in. To use a very common example, police often respond to noise complaints about loud music. In many cases, the offenders may be in violation of noise ordinances. Police officers routinely ask the offenders to simply turn the music down and do not write them citations. They are not obligated to write a ticket just because someone had complained.
I think that removing the flag in this case is very analogous to turning the music down. Those poor, victimized neighbors no longer had to endure the sight of a contrary political opinion. Their ordeal was over. Their (bullshit) complant had been dealt with. They had succeeded in squelching spomeone else’s free speech. They were winners. That wasn’t good enough for Deputy Dawg, though.
This appears to be the first time a citation has ever been issued for violating this statute, so it obviously wasn’t being enforced. This deputy only did it because he wanted to be a cocksucker.
They WERE nice to the cops, both times. They were nice enough to remove the flag when Buford T. Justice came to grind his political axe, even though they were perfectly within their rights to leave it up. We know he was lying about being assaulted. He may not have liked having the door closed on him (and i still think it’s a stretch to call that “resisting arrest”), but the reason he went berserk and broke into the house (and then lied about it) was because he was going to show those hippie commie liberals what for. We all know that’s what was going on here. Let’s not pretend.
You just won’t release that bone, will you? I believe that those much smarter in law than me have pointed out that until the specific statute is challenged, it is enforceable. It would very likely, based on precedent, be determined to be unconstitutional, and rightly so. Not the officer’s call to make.
Or the couple were being cocksuckers, and earned themselves a nuisance ticket. I repeat, just because they removed the flag does not mean they weren’t being assholes to the officer.
This is a two way street, yet you only travel in one direction.
Now, you just go ahead and show you have no perspective on this. It has been explained to you repeatedly that the particular statute in question had NOT been ruled unconstitutional. And it is NOT a cop’s job to divine what statutes on the books might or might not be deemed unconstitutional if they went to court. (I really can’t beleive you’re advoacating that.) Unless you can show that the statute in question was IDENTICAL to the one Scotus did rule on, you cannot rail to the high heavens about it being unconstitutional. From a legal standpoint, the complaint was not bullshit. And the* Law Enforcement *officer did nothing wrong in issuing the citation. He may not have exercised the discretion in the way you would have liked, but “discretion” allowed him to take either of the paths open to him.
None?! Cite?
Please show evidence of all the similar times flag were shown in violation of the statute. For all you know, this was the first time. You’re just talking out of your ass. More and more.
That’s qualifies as being nice. To use your own example, a cop comes to your door after a complaint about loud music late at night. The music is loud, in violation of town ordinance. You turn it down. THAT"S BEING NICE? No, that’s obeying the law so you don’t get issued a citation or subsequently get your dumb ass in jail. I don’t see how based on what we’ve read how you can come to the conclusion that the couple was even close to being “nice”. How is not cooperating with the officer and slamming the door in his face being “nice”.
Oh, and are you now claiming that the officer was of a different political stripe than the couple? Maybe. I’ll go so far as to say probably. But come on, you keep hurting yourself here.
Take a step back, Dio. This thread is not helping you. That from someone who agrees with you that we shouldn’t have restrictions and flag burning, etc.
I have read 7 and a half pages. It seems that the cop decided to enforce a statute that was on the books in the jurisdiction by writing a citation.
It is not for the cop, or even the defendents, to decide on the Constitutionality of said statute right then and there. That is done when the defendents have their day in court, as part of their defence.
When it becomes clear that the cop was going to issue a citation, the defendents willfully took actions that would hinder or prevent the cop from carrying out his duties. The use of force, in this case, results from that action (the door being closed/slammed), and not the flag issue.
If it turns out that the cop used unnecessary amount of force (breaking down the door, handcuffing the husband), again, the legally provided remedy appears to be to handle it in court. The cop will be sanctioned then, and possible changes to the Departmental Operating Procedures will be decided then.
The only time, as far as I know, that a suspect may physically defend himself (and resist arrest) versus a cop carrying out his duties is when the defendent has a reasonable fear for his/her life… or am I wrong there?
Even in protest marches, the member of organised groups are reminded to not resist arrest, despite the righteousness of their cause, as that leads to legitimately prosecutable charges and jail time.
Not disagreeing with you in general, but I just want to nitpick this one point. There is no unresolved question as to whether the force was appropriate. There may have been an issue as to whether a policeman should force entry into a home where the resident has refused to sign a citation and locked himself in, but that ship has already sailed, since the officer already lied and said he didn’t break in. He can’t really argue “I didn’t break in, but if I did, it would be o.k.” 
I’m pretty sure lying isn’t part of the Departmental Operating Procedures.
(He may have been better off just admitting what he did in the first place. The fact that he lied suggests that he knew he had acted out of anger.)
The cop was not performing a duty. He had no duty to enforce an unconstitutional law (and the constutionality had already been decided by SCOTUS so let’s stop spouting nonsense about the cops making that decision for themselves. This was not a statute that the state was making any effort to enforce, just like they don’t make any effort to enforce anti-sodomy laws and just like the only effort to do so would be to be an asshole pushing a personal political agenda).
Did they technically resist arrest when they closed the door? Maybe. I doubt they knew it, though.
They DID have a reason to fear for their lives. An enraged lunatic with a gun had just broken into their home. God knows what he would have done if the hadn’t called 911. We already know he was prepared to lie about the facts. He might have shot them both and then made up some bullshit story to justify it. I don’t think rape or cannibalism would be out of the question either. It’s better not to wait and find out. They did exactly what they should have done. They ran and called 911 and fended off the attacker as best they could until the legitimate authorities arrived.
Man. Someday when your frothing stops and the fever leaves you might look back on this thread and cringe with embarrassment. When that happens you will know that there is hope for your recovery.
What do we have here, progress? You now make room for they may have been resisting arrest? Maybe there is hope.
I retract my previous comment. I’d normally be inclined to apt you on the back here for a good whoosh, but based on the rest of your postings in this thread, I’m sadly afraid that is not the case.
Which did they do first? Surely they didn’t call 911 when there was merely a cop at there door. I mean, calling 911 would just result in his radio going off and he being told to go to so-snd-so address. So first the scuffle happened. Then, my guess is, they realized they fucked up and called 911 to build a defense. That seems quite reasonable. In which case I fullly expect you to reject it.
I know I am not alone in saying “Dio, come back to us.”
P.S. Are you still looking for the cite I asked for, or do you retract that ranting—I mean claim?
Ok. I misread post #320, and thought the cite applied to the jurisdiction in question.
Let’s say the cop was not authorised to break down the door of someone refusing to sign a citation, but does so anyway. Is a home owner allowed to physically resist arrest? How much force are they allowed to use to resist this arrest?
The Dept. SOP that might get changed would be more (or “refresher”) training on if/when (and how) to make arrests for misdemeanors…
The cop, nor the defendants, or the final arbiters of what laws on the books are affected by recent (or long past) SCOTUS decisions. Only the court system is. Period. And holding those debates in the defendants living room are not the proper forum, either.
This might support a “harassment” charge by the defendents, because they can show that the law is not being applied evenly. But this still does not allow the defendant to use physical force or obstructions to prevent a cop from making the arrest (or issuing a citation) based on a law that was still on the books.
Did they think the cop was just going to go “Curses! Foiled again! Another one got away!”? Seriously…
“Sorry Officer. I think your wrong. I dont have to comply with any of your requests. So there! Nyah!” “Hehe. We shore told him, Marge!”
The cop is not judge, jury, or executioner. He just identifies (and arrests, if the situation is serious enough) people to the judicial system that a law may have been broken.
We don’t hold these legal debates immediately at the scene of the arrest. They are done in court, which is supposed to be an impartial third party. (Impartial in the sense that, like in this case, emotions may have run a bit heated between the LEO and the defendent, but the Judge or Jury won’t be making their decision based on a hot temper…)
Neither the police, nor the average citizen, is expected to know all the fine points of the law and discovery as we do lawyers or judges. (At least, I don’t. The cops should know a little more about the law than I do, but IMO not as much as a Judge.)
If the defendents had complied and provided their names to the cop, would he have flown off the handle? I doubt it. He would have wrote his ticket, maybe made some disparaging remarks, stuff like that.
Seems to me both sides were probably in the wrong here. There was possibly some mutual animosity, and tempers flared.
This wasn’t completely out of the blue, either. (Unless they have no short term memory capabilities at all.) They just shut the door on the cop. They could probably deduce what made him fly off the handle.
Absolute pure speculation.
How did he know they called 911? He was outside kicking the door…
Why didnt he shoot them anyway, and plant his “hold out”?
Riggghht. They thought he might eat them. :dubious: Let’s let the jury decide.
I respectfully disagree. The couple may have thought that they didnt need to comply with the cops orders. But again, that is for the courts to decide, not anyone else.
But once the cop flies off the handle (and he is completely in the wrong about that, he should have stepped back, calmed down, and called for assistance… after all, the couple might have had a gun themselves), clearly the situation has derailed. “Fending off” the cop will only piss him off more. There is no reasonable “succesfull” outcome (on the part of the defendent), that I can see, from getting into fistacuffs with an angry cop. (If he was going to kill me, he would have shot me before getting into fist range.)
What you want to do is de-fuse the situation. The cop is trained for that, but he failed to do so. (And may be held accountable for that.) The reasonable course (for the defendent) is to allow the cop to make the arrest, and sue his ass off later. IMO.
It’s the most they were guilty of but I think even that chracge will be dropped because the testimony of the deputy has been so badly compromised.
Well, I’ll admit that the the possibility of cannibalism is pretty remote…
But seriously, I think that once he broke and entered and assaulted them (with no prior physical provocation or threat to his own safety), it was perfectly reasonable to feel threatened.
They called 911 after he broke into the house and they attacked them. there was no “scuffle,” prior to his breaking and entering.
A cite that a cop doesn’t have to write a citation just because somebody complained? Personal experience. Many times in the past, I had the cops called on me for noise complaints (band practices). On many occasions I was technically in violation of noise ordinances and yet, I was never once given a citation. They told me the neighbors were complaining and it was time to shut it down. I shut it down. No citation.
What is your cite that they DO have to write a citation?
By the way, this deputy was lying to the couple when he said the statute did not allow anything to be attached to the flag. The statute doesn’t say that.
FYI, the Supreme Court IS part of the court system.
They closed a door. Let’s not exaggerate.
They might have thought (as I would have thought) that he could finish writing the ticket and then put it in the mailbox or under the door. It’s not like it was a valid citation anyway. The intention was purely to harrass them.
All this stuff is a joke. It’san obsolete, 1917 statute which was no longer being enforced by the state. Let’s not pretend that there’s any real ambiguity or uncertainty as to whether the deputy knew that the statute was bullshit.
Animosity which could have been avoided if this cop had simply ignored the complaint and allowed this couple to exercise their constitutional rights in peace.
They didn’t call 911 until after he was in the house. He chased the husband into the kitchen and (rightfully fearing for their lives) the wife called 911.
If they were afraid, they were afraid. They shouldn’t just have to let this guy beat them down, and it’s not like they shot him. They were just trying to defend themselves against a physical attack.
OK, here I can side with you. The couple was, in the view of the complaintant and the officer, in violation of a statute which, if challenged, would likely be judged unenforceable and unconstitutional. The citation would likely have been a nuisance.
It’s been a few pages, but I think the statute talked about defacing a flag. If the officer thinks you are defacing the flag, and you think you aren’t, who is going to win the argument 9.5 times out of 10? The place to argue the definition of deface is in court. And I’ll reiterate, just because you seem to ignore anything you don’t want to read, just because they removed the flag does not mean they were not assholes. They may have talked themselves into a citation that may never have come. I don’t know, and you don’t know (unless you were the one cited…hmmm, now it is all coming together).
That may very well be. But that is a different issue.
[Sigh.]Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
We do not know to what degree he may have been provoked. And an officer feeling threatened for his own safety has got jack-shit to do with it. Pulling his gun, yes. Wanting to arrest someone, no.
My point was that they called 911 after all this nonsense happened. My guess, to start to build a defense for their behavior, which was dick-fuck dumb EVEN IF the cop was dickish himself. My additional guess is that had they handled things differetn up front, no attempted arrest, no resisting arrest, no story, and most important, no thread that will haunt you in the future.
No. One that states that an officer’s discretion is not reduced one iota even if a complaint is called in. Here is the exchange: (bolding mine)
Gosh, I don’t know. That’s more a philosophy question, don’t you think? I think there have been times when resistance was appropriate - the resistance movement of blacks in the '60s was appropriate, necessary, and effective, wouldn’t you say? I think there can be times when unjust laws must be disobeyed, or disallowed police actions must be resisted.
But like I said, I don’t disagree with most of your previous post; I was just nitpicking that one thing. In general, the time to dispute a citation is in court, not by arguing with the officer issuing the citation.
Well, their discretion has never been reduced in any of my encounters. They obviously did not have to write a ticket. What other discretion is there?
Yeah I do. No one gets between me and my timely enjoyment of an ice cream cone. There oughta be a law!