Actually it might be better than that.
Listen to the audio clips from Staff Sgt. Mark Radford on the site.
He knew that a complaint had been made prior to his and clearly wasn’t happy with the action of the first deputy.
Then there’s this,
Anybody think that’s just a coincidence? Anybody think this looks like a set-up?
Scarborough didn’t go there to investigate a complaint, he went there on behalf of his buddies in the guard to fuck with people who were against the war.
CMC fnord!
They already did that.
Hmmm. For me, this incident was not about the flag.
For me, the question (and debate I engaged in) was:
I said no, because I feel that, in general, most citizens don’t have the legal or legislative training to make those decisions for themselves. You contest your charges in court.
The DA and Sheriff’s department dropped all charges, including the assault and resisting arrest ones, because they feel that there initial reason for being there was unenforceable. (He’s using his prosecutorial discretion here, at the very least on the assault charges.)
Does that mean the DA thinks that folks can resist arrest whenever they feel like the charges are bogus?
(I agree with the realistic appraisal, in that, they most probably would not get a conviction on the flag issue, and a jury may nullify any charges of assault with an aquittal.)
Another question that comes up for me, based on this incident:
Are his attempts to secure an arrest, for violations of a statute that is later found to be unConstitutional, a basis for charges of assault?
With the DA dropping charges, the NC court doesn’t have to answer them right now. (The civil suit that is sure to follow may bring these questions out…)
I still blame the NC legislature (in part) for not taking care of the statute until prodded by an incident like this.
Congratulations, DtC. Your knee jerked in the correct direction.
Ugh. I made the mistake of reading the first two pages of comments on the Citizen Times article. While I think that there are idiots and assholes at both ends of the spectrum, that article only brought out ones from the far and stupid right (only 2 or 3, but scary stupid type of right wingers who really want facism).
They didn’t resist arrest, at least not in anything but the most pedantic sense. They were attacked by a rogue LOE with his own agenda. They never even had to open the door as far as I’m concerned.
I’m guessing he just doesn’t buy that they resisted arrest at all. Like me, he knows that this was nothing but an instance of unprofessional, politically motivated harrassment. He also knew that he could not sustain an assault charge against the couple once the facts were in that the deputy had lied about having the door slammed on his arm and that he was the one who broke into the house and inititiated the attack.
In this case, he was not. The state was already choosing not to try to enforce this statute. It’s also more than obvious that he was acting on his own personal and political moti.vations and was only using his uniform as a pretext.
He wasn’t charged with assault.
This happened in my neighborhood :eek: , though I wasn’t aware of it until yesterday. Some neighbors and a repair guy working close by support the Kuhns’ version of events.
Although things are hopefully changing, for decades the Buncombe County Sheriff’s Department has been more Boss Hawg than Mayberry. They’re currently being investigated by the FBI, the SBI, and the IRS after it was discovered that drugs, hundreds of guns, and hundreds of thousands of dollars seized as evidence have mysteriously gone missing. The former sheriff was well known as a corrupt son-of-a-bitch, who among other things, hushed up the fact the his son beat the shit out of his girlfriend.
I don’t always presume that cops are in the wrong, but I have very, very little faith in this particular law enforcement agency.
Vindicated my ass. Here is the entire text of your OP.
Didn’t the Supreme Court already rule that flaf desecration laws are unconstutional? How is it possible that th state of North Carolina is not only still trying to enforce this chrade of a law but allowing law enforcement to break into people’s homes and attack them for it?
The wheels of justice and all that. Although it may seem strange to you, when people are arrested and charged with a crime it actually takes time to sort things out. The people you described as fascists and redneck assholes looked at the evidence and decided to drop the charges. Unless you expect only the guilty to ever be charged with crimes, things worked out pretty much as they should have, your bigoted protestations notwithstanding. I suspect that the arresting officer will be investigated and found at fault, and that the Kuhns may well have a case for a civil suit.
You are right. I shouldn’t have blamed the state. It was one asshole deputy taking it upon himself. The state has acted properly.
Well … you’re no fun. 
And yeah, it sounds like the deputy was a right asshole. And if he did it because his National Guard buddies wanted him to, my guess is he will be out of a job, at the very least.
Well, not having the *Dictionary of **lowbrass *** around, I just checked with real ones:
The American Heritage Dictionary-n. A jagged wound or cut.
and
American Heritage Stedman’s Medical Dictionary-A jagged wound or cut.
Does the Dictionary of lowbrass include mswas definitions as well? I might actually purchase a copy of that…
Oh, so you cherry-picked the ONLY one that appears at dictionary.com that has the word “cut” in it. How nice for you.
How about a medical dictionary?
All you have succeeded in doing is to find a rather imprecise wording from an abridged dictionary. “Cut” and “laceration” have specific meanings, and those meanings are different. Look, I KNOW what it means, so don’t try to take me on because you will lose.
Now, can we please stop the parade of nitpickery?
If by ONLY you are referring to BOTH, sure. As opposed to your original quote which cherry picked half a definition?
Like the one I cited? You know, with the word cut in it?
Oh, I’m shaking. You KNOW what it means despite the fact that it can mean a cut.
Sure, I can leave it be.
I have no idea what you are talking about. There are six:
And American Heritage is the only one that uses the word “cut”, and even then qualifies it as “jagged”. A laceration is described as a “tear” in every dictionary except the one that you cherry-picked.
But you’d obviously rather play little semantic “gotcha” games than actually try to comprehend what we’re talking about.
(Oh, I see - perhaps you are thinking the two identical American Heritage entries count as two sources - that’s lame)
Well, there are 5, as the last one is just a link elsewhere, none of which use ‘mangle’. And you seem to ignore the American Heritage Stedman’s Medical Dictionary right on that page.
It takes two to tango, Chachi. You want to somehow parlay the word ‘cut’ in a news article into solid proof that the deputy’s hand wasn’t injured by being slammed in a door. :rolleyes:
Why? They’re different dictionaries. Do you consider Mustangs and F-150s the same vehicle because they’re both Fords? While you’re at it, you might want to look up the word “identical”, you don’t seem to have a firm grasp on that one, either.
Um, yes - and if you click on that link, it gives you a definition that does NOT use the word “cut”.
Don’t know what your point is there.
I ignored nothing. The first definition in both of the American Heritage cites are WORD-FOR-WORD identical. Obviously written by the same person, and obviously the one lone-wolf definition that you cherry-picked for whatever arcane point you think you’re making.
Yeah, that’s exactly what I said. :rolleyes: That’s really funny how you called me Chachi, too. You’re such a clever little boy.
Whatever. If you want to believe that two word-for-word identical definitions from the same publisher count as two separate sources, have fun with that.
I’m done with this ridiculous nitpicking. I never said it proves the cop didn’t get his arm slammed in the door; I just said it gave me a strong suspicion that he didn’t. And it’s obvious to anyone who has paid any kind of attention to this thread that the cop was lying, so my suspicion was correct. So I don’t know what we’re still arguing about. If you want to keep arguing, go ahead. You can do it by yourself.
The answer is yes you have the right to resist an unlawful arrest, but you had better be right. Just because you thought it was unlawful is not a defense. But if it actually was then you can assert self defense as an affirmative defense at trial.
Well no everybody doesnt know ,I happen to be English so maybe you can help me out on this one by supplying a cite .
My experience of people saying that "everybody knows this " or "even a child could see this"is that they are expressing what they’d LIKE to be the truth but have absaloutly no evidence to back their allegation up.
Broaden my horizons by proving that I’m wrong on this occasion.
My next point is that you think that its ok to slam a door on someones hand if they wish to close it.
I very much hope that I never have to follow you into a shop,bar,library etc. when its raining cos your right to slam the door shut obviously overrides my right not to have a broken hand ,though to be fair I expect you’d be as unjudgemental if somebody slammed a door on your hand,after all its only their constitutional right and Ijust know that as a warrior for freedom you would be quite happy to accept the pain and restriction of activity just so long as it demonstrates the constitutional rights of all Americans.
Us Brits envy you yanks ,we have no written constitution so as a result we are brutally oppressed each and every day(apparently by ,as I was told by an Irishman,our Norman overlords !I learn something every day no matter how old I get.)
I must however take you to task with your dramatic accusations of American Fascism .
You have totally no idea .
There are many poor bastards in the world who have no choice but to live under dictatorships and they cant leave and you insult their suffering .
.
For them there is no vote ,secret or otherwise .
No free speech ,say the wrong thing and you end up tortured and or dead.
No Miranda,no right to silence .
No right to a defence lawyer let alone one provided for free.
No trial public or otherwise .
No legal process,warrants or the burden of proof on the police .
No independant or for that matter any police watchdog body.
Summary execution,confiscation of property,rape and extortion.
Religous and racial persecution.as the norm.No freedom of movement within the country let alone being allowed to leave the country.
In England ,though I’m sure that you personally are’nt anything at all like these people,we have Walter Mitty ,Wannabe revolutionaries .They talk the talk ,wear berets and camouflage jackets ,have demonstrations,print their news letters and when the revolution comes then they’re your men,you’ll be able to trust them to the death.
But in the mean time they live at home with their mums or live on welfare.
But dont get them wrong ,its all part of their anarchist philosophy.
Get enough people claiming welfare and the Fascist establishment of G.Bs economy will collapse .
And thats when they’ll make their move for power…
Well, now you know.
I can’t be assed. Let’s just say I’ve lived in England and I know what the cops are like in England and that the cops in the US aren’t like the cops in England.
Read a fucking newspaper.
If they’re trying to get into your home, slam away. That didn’t happen in this case, though. It turns out that the deputy was lying about having the door slammed on his arm.
A bar, a library, etc. would not be my home. Do you think people have no right to shut would be intruders out of their own homes?
I never saw any of that when I lived there. They must hide it from the yanks.
I made no such accusation against America. It was a personal accusation against one guy.
Am I supposed to be insulted by your dry, devastating wit? Sorry to disappoint you but I’m no revolutionary. I’m a middle aged, middle class white guy with a wife and two kids. I’ve never been to a political demonstration or belonged to any political organization. I don’t read any newsletters. I’m bored by most political activism. I’ve never even belonged to any political party. The extent of my political activity (outside of bitching about Bush on the internet) is that I always vote. Contrary to being an anarachist, I want more government, not less and I’ve never received a welfare check or been without a job. Hell, I was once in the military. Your mental picture of me is laughably erroneous.
Are you sure you’re British, by the way. You sound more like one of own homegrown, dittohead morons. Who do you like in the F.A. Cup?
Don’t the cops in England run around in sped-up motion all in a line? I saw it on Benny Hill.
A couple of points. Note that post 399 points out that the statute in question was challenged in 1971 (two dudes were charged with it, the only two ever charged with it in NC–one had a flag on a jacket, I think, while the other was transporting a flag on the roof of his car), and they combined their cases to challenge the law.
The Kuhns and their neighbors say that there have been figures in fatigues coming by their house for awhile taking pictures of it; it’s been somewhat alarming for them. You’d think it was all lefty conspiracy stuff, except that a local military guy got another local military guy to go knock down their door. That’s the way it goes sometimes in Buncombe County. Van Duncan is trying to change the culture, but it’s a slow process.
My favorite quote that came out of the whole thing was (paraphrased) when Duncan said that he wished the case had been handled differently, but that we should remember that it was people like Scarborough who gave us our right to protest in the first place. y’know, if he’d said it was the National Guard that gave us that right, I’d quibble, but I’d accept his point as valid. But it’s pretty bleedin’ obvious that Scarborough does not believe in the right to protest (at least, not in the right to protest in a way that he considers disrespectful), and that it’s people like Scarborough from whom the Constitution needs protection, not who are protecting the Constitution.
Daniel