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

The BBQ Pit
441

[QUOTE=magellan01]
The cop wnated to issue a citation based on a law that was, and is, on the books. He has the right to do that.
[/quote]

The pertinent question, I think, is whether he has the right to bust down a door and throw someone on the ground in order to issue such a citation. That’s not a rhetorical question: I’m really not clear on the answer to it. If we stipulate for a moment that:

  1. The statute is enforceable; and
  2. The cop did bust down the door after the Kuhns closed it (i.e., they didn’t smash it onto his hand),

did the cop act legally?

Go to an NC state fair sometime and count the number of American flag T-shirts, baseball caps, beer cozies, cigarette lighters, etc. There’s plenty of evidence that it was routinely violated to the extent that the Kuhns did.

HOWEVER, even if the statute were constitutional (which it isn’t, having been ruled so nearly 4 decades prior), the Kuhns almost certainly didn’t violate it. The Statute in question:

Note that the statute forbids willing, knowing contempt for the flag by physical means. The Kuhns attached things to the flag, but there is no sign whatsoever that they were trying to show contempt for the flag.

Hah! It was ruled unconstitutional 37 years ago. Which politician, if you please, do you think will be the one to sponsor a bill that allows flag desecration? That sucker is staying on the books, or my name isn’t Left Hand of Dorkness.

Daniel

442

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
The pertinent question, I think, is whether he has the right to bust down a door and throw someone on the ground in order to issue such a citation.
[/QUOTE]

Well, when you put it that way…

Seriously, as I stated earlier, I don’t know what the law is. If someone is trying to avoid being issued a citation, I don’t know what a cop can do to make sure it is issued. If I’m in a car that is physically incapable of going over 60 mph and I get pulled over for doing 90 and the cop wants to give me a ticket, I can’t just drive—or walk—away. The place to plead my case is the same place the Kuhns should have plead theirs: court.

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
That’s not a rhetorical question: I’m really not clear on the answer to it. If we stipulate for a moment that:

  1. The statute is enforceable; and
  2. The cop did bust down the door after the Kuhns closed it (i.e., they didn’t smash it onto his hand),

did the cop act legally?
[/QUOTE]

As explained above, I do not know. I tried to ask this upthread.

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Go to an NC state fair sometime and count the number of American flag T-shirts, baseball caps, beer cozies, cigarette lighters, etc. There’s plenty of evidence that it was routinely violated to the extent that the Kuhns did.
[/QUOTE]

That’s not necessarily the same thing. Some would argue that putting the flag on clothing, etc. is indeed disrepectful to the flag, most wouldn’t. I would venture to guess that most wouldn’t consider a piece of paper pinned to a flag stating “God Bless America” as being an act of desecration.

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
HOWEVER, even if the statute were constitutional (which it isn’t, having been ruled so nearly 4 decades prior), the Kuhns almost certainly didn’t violate it. The Statute in question:

Note that the statute forbids willing, knowing contempt for the flag by physical means. The Kuhns attached things to the flag, but there is no sign whatsoever that they were trying to show contempt for the flag.
[/QUOTE]

Whether they were in violation of federal law is a question that needs to involve a court. I’m nothing short of amazed the Dio and others (you?) would advocate such a thing. Like much of our system, this aspect might be imperfect. Cops are there to enforce laws that are on the books. If you agree that they have discretion to not issue a citation you have to accept that they also have discretion to issue one. As far as I know, there is no law against beiing either a hard-ass or a prick. If they repeatedly exercise poor judgement they will gain the reputation of being an asshole and he will know it. And THAT is justice. This happened in my hometown. A guy from the football team (that was always kissing the coach’s ass and we laughed at him for it) got a job as a town cop after he graduated. He immediately established himself as the biggest prick on the force and was ostracized and ridiculed for it, as well as passed over for promotions.

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Hah! It was ruled unconstitutional 37 years ago. Which politician, if you please, do you think will be the one to sponsor a bill that allows flag desecration? That sucker is staying on the books, or my name isn’t Left Hand of Dorkness.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think itll be such a big deal since it is unconstitutional, and therefore useless. But it’ll be a long time before it is enforced again.

443

[QUOTE=Zoe]
The two things that bother me most about this whole situation are that the statute still remains on the books and members of our military have conspired to deprive citizens of their civil rights.
[/QUOTE]

Military? Are you posting in the wrong thread?

444

[QUOTE=magellan01]
That’s not necessarily the same thing. Some would argue that putting the flag on clothing, etc. is indeed disrepectful to the flag, most wouldn’t. I would venture to guess that most wouldn’t consider a piece of paper pinned to a flag stating “God Bless America” as being an act of desecration.
[/quote]

Right–which was exactly my point in saying they violated the law to the extent that the Kuhns do. The facts clearly point out that the Kuhns were not trying to show contempt to the flag any more than the “God Bless America” on the flag would be an attempt to show it contempt.

:confused: Federal law? What on earth are you talking about here? This is a state statute. And if they’re clearly not in violation of a law (that is, if they’re clearly not trying to show contempt to the flag), that no more needs to involve a court than if they were driving 55 mph in a 60 mph speed limit. They didn’t violate the law. That is cut and dried. This has nothing to do with a cop using discretion: they were not intending to show contempt to the flag.

Yeah, like maybe 37 years.

Daniel

445

No. I’m posting in the one I read all the way through. How about you? Did you read all of this one? How about all of this page? Maybe even the first post on this page?

See Post 401:

That bit of information dovetails nicely with the other times that someone in a military uniform was seen driving repeatedly by the house both before and after the incident with the LEO. The neighbors also saw him.

Post 401 again:

(The “he” being referred to is the second LEO that came to the scene – the one that wrote the citation.)

Not at all. After they are charged, they are alleged to have committed a crime. They must be proven to be guilty before they can be accused of having committed a crime by a citizen or in a newspaper. If the charges are dropped, they are no longer even alleged to have committed a crime and you certainly can’t go around saying they did commit a crime without risking a libel suit.

My comment was in response to danceswithcats claim that “They DID commit a crime.” Your post following hers deferred to hers and that’s why you were quoted. Do you disagree then with this part of her statement?

Regarding multiple complaints:

I’m not sure that I understand you. Are you saying that as multiple complaints pile up, an officer has less and less discretion that he can use in investigating – even if the law on the books has not been enforced in over thirty years? Even if the law is that silly one about not sneezing on a public street in Ashville? Even if he knows it’s unConstitutional? So what if the same flag is hung out tonight and ten people call in to complain? Will a LEO have to go to their house and try to give them a citation for violating this same (unConstitutional) North Carolina law?

I wish I could rely on that, but I can’t. I know how the South protects States’ Rights. It keeps laws like this on the books just so that people who exercise their federal rights can still be harassed. And those who keep these laws on the books believe that we should be harassed if we are so independent. This incident was all about control.

446

[QUOTE=kidchameleon]
Military? Are you posting in the wrong thread?
[/QUOTE]
The deputy involved was a National Guard member, and the “complaint” involved some of his buddies in the National Guard bitching about how no one was stopping those damned dirty protesters from “desecrating” the flag.

This is far from official, but I have a friend who was an MP, and is familiar with civilian police training as well. I told her this story, and she interrupted me to say, “They’re not allowed to do that! You can only break down a door if it’s a felony warrant.” So that seems to have been her training, at least. It makes sense for all involved, as someone pointed out long ago in this thread. It is stupid and dangerous to introduce violence into a completely peaceable (though technically illegal) situation.

447

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
The facts clearly point out that the Kuhns were not trying to show contempt to the flag any more than the “God Bless America” on the flag would be an attempt to show it contempt.
[/QUOTE]

How do you arrive at this conclusion?

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
:confused: Federal law? What on earth are you talking about here? This is a state statute. And if they’re clearly not in violation of a law (that is, if they’re clearly not trying to show contempt to the flag), that no more needs to involve a court than if they were driving 55 mph in a 60 mph speed limit.
[/QUOTE]

This is not true. People go to court all the time if they think they;ve been issued a speeding ticket in error or unfairly. As far as the first part, I was talking about the unconstitutional aspect of it.

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
They didn’t violate the law. That is cut and dried. This has nothing to do with a cop using discretion: they were not intending to show contempt to the flag.
[/QUOTE]

There seems to have been two violations. One in violating the state statute, the other in resisting arrest and striking the officer. Now, let’s assume that the Kuhns modification of the flag did NOT violate the statute. The way their supposed to handle that is through the court system, not fight with the cop over it. I can’t believe this is such a strange concept to grasp.

448

[QUOTE=Zoe]
Not at all. After they are charged, they are alleged to have committed a crime. They must be proven to be guilty before they can be accused of having committed a crime by a citizen or in a newspaper. If the charges are dropped, they are no longer even alleged to have committed a crime and you certainly can’t go around saying they did commit a crime without risking a libel suit.
[/QUOTE]

Are you quibbling with the absence of the word “alleged” in a discussion on a message board? Oh, brother. Do you really think everyone here isn’t aware of the difference between charges being brought or a citation being issued and guilt proven in a court of law. You can’t be serious. Or am I not understanding your point here?

[QUOTE=Zoe]
My comment was in response to danceswithcats claim that “They DID commit a crime.” Your post following hers deferred to hers and that’s why you were quoted. Do you disagree then with this part of her statement?
[/QUOTE]

Again, I must—I hope—I’m not understanding your point here. Because if your point is that everyone in this discussion needs to use the word “alleged” every time they refer to what may or may not have transpired here, I’ll have to refer you to my friend: :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Zoe]
I’m not sure that I understand you. Are you saying that as multiple complaints pile up, an officer has less and less discretion that he can use in investigating – even if the law on the books has not been enforced in over thirty years?
[/QUOTE]

I’m saying that it would seem logical that if a cop here’s loud noise coming from a party at 1 AM and knocks on the door he has complete discretion as to whether or not issue a citation. If Person A calls in a complaint, he still has discretion, although I say it might be reduced an iota. If Person A calls back and complains again, the likelihood of the offers discretion resulting in issuing a citation increases. If Persons B & C also call in complaints, the odds that a citation will be issued goes up dramatically. He still has discretion, but he is being pushed to issuing the citation. If for no other reason than to cover his own ass if Person A, B or C are unhappy enough with the loud music at 3AM and seek to resolve the matter on their own and ugliness ensues.

Do you disagree with this assessment?

[QUOTE=Zoe]
I wish I could rely on that, but I can’t. I know how the South protects States’ Rights. It keeps laws like this on the books just so that people who exercise their federal rights can still be harassed. And those who keep these laws on the books believe that we should be harassed if we are so independent. This incident was all about control.
[/QUOTE]

Isn’t that what all laws are about?

449

[QUOTE=magellan01]
How do you arrive at this conclusion?
[/quote]

They were demonstrating their belief that the country was in distress, using an aspect of the flag code to do so. They had attached some pictures to the flag to further explain their reasoning. They were on hand to explain their reasoning. They were clearly not intending to show contempt for the flag.

People go to court all the time when it’s not clear that they’re in the clear. Cops don’t just pull over random people who are going 55 in a 60 zone; if they do, they’re incompetent and should not be on the force.

No, there were NOT two violations. They didn’t violate the state statute, as I showed above. The cop in question was corrupt or incompetent in citing them for a violation of this statute. And witnesses say they did not strike the officer: witnesses say the cop falsified the arrest report. There is a legitimate question about whether they resisted arrest, I suppose, given that the cop never arrested them and that all they did was close and lock a door that the cop busted down. I can’t believe this is such a strange concept to grasp.

Daniel

450

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
They were demonstrating their belief that the country was in distress, using an aspect of the flag code to do so. They had attached some pictures to the flag to further explain their reasoning. They were on hand to explain their reasoning. They were clearly not intending to show contempt for the flag.
[/QUOTE]

I wouldn’t say they were necessarily showing contemp for the flag, but using the flag to show contempt for the country. In doing so, they violated the statute. Or so it appears. I think this is one of those instances that people will never agree on at what point a flag is “desecrated”.

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
People go to court all the time when it’s not clear that they’re in the clear. Cops don’t just pull over random people who are going 55 in a 60 zone; if they do, they’re incompetent and should not be on the force.
[/QUOTE]

Oh, really? So if there is an egregious error—innocent or evil—court is not the place to settle that. Instead, the person should argue with the cop, to the point of physical confrontation if necessary, and insist that his interpretation of the law and the “theoretical” violation is superior to that of the cop? Well, I suggest you adopt the method of operation should the situation arise and see how well it serves you.

And if a cop gives out ridiculous tickets, etc., as a matter of course, then you’re right and he should not be on the force. And if he gets such a reputation, he won’t bve for long.

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
No, there were NOT two violations. They didn’t violate the state statute, as I showed above. The cop in question was corrupt or incompetent in citing them for a violation of this statute. And witnesses say they did not strike the officer: witnesses say the cop falsified the arrest report. There is a legitimate question about whether they resisted arrest, I suppose, given that the cop never arrested them and that all they did was close and lock a door that the cop busted down. I can’t believe this is such a strange concept to grasp.
[/QUOTE]

Just because this particular cop may have been a prick does not mean that a more honest, more fair cop might not have chosen to issue a citation, as well. And, regardless of whether the flag was technically in violation of the satute or not, the cop still has the right to issue the citation. If he is wrong—as human beings can often be—court is the place to striaghten it out. That’s how our system works. It can’t be left up to each recipient of a citation or someone being placed under arrest to expect to determiine the veracity of the charge on the spot. YOU MUST KNOW THIS.

I received a ticket one time because I passed a flare that had gone out in a thunderstorm. There were two cop cars on the side street talking driver-to-driver. They both had their cop lights on. So I slow down to about two miles an hour to negotiqate the braches that had fallen down and to make sure there wasn’t a power line down or something. next thiing I know I get pulled over and issued a ticket. I go to court and the cop just flat out lied. Not only did he say that I drove past lit flares, but that I also swerved and drove around his car which was blocking the street. Just thinking aqbout it I want to higher a bunch of thugs go back to that state and beat him senseless. He lied because he was supposed to have his car blocking the roaqd and keep the flares lit because THERE WAS A POWER LINE DOWN. Instead, he was shooting the shit with his buddy. Amazing to me, I lost the case.

I bring this up only because I know full well that cops do lie and jsutice can be subverted. But had I gotten shitty with the cop that night I would have had the ticket I got plus God knows what else. Anyway, sorry for the long story.

451

[QUOTE=magellan01]
I wouldn’t say they were necessarily showing contemp for the flag, but using the flag to show contempt for the country. In doing so, they violated the statute. Or so it appears.
[/quote]

Did you read the statute I quoted?

The statute only forbids showing contempt to the flag, not showing contempt to the country. Again, it’s clear that they did not violate the statute.

Oh, look: it’s your friend! :rolleyes:

That’s not at all what I said. I’m not talking here about their right to slam the door in the officer’s face: as I said before, I’m genuinely unclear on whether they have that right. I’m talking about the officer’s right to write them a citation for violating a law that they clearly didn’t violate. Clear now?

Sure. And if he gives out a ridiculous ticket even once, and then busts down a door and throws the perp to the ground, and then falsifies the report about the incident–if he does that EVEN ONCE–then he should be thrown off the force for the clear reason that you can’t serve and protect when you’re serving time.

That’s true. The fact that they were not in violation of the citation means that an honest, fair, minimally competent cop would not have chosen to issue a citation.

No, actually, he doesn’t have that right. He might mistakenly do it, and we all make mistakes. He especially doesn’t have the right to falsify the police report about the incident.

:rolleyes: again. I never claimed otherwise. Look to the last time your friend appeared for clarification.

Daniel

452

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
That’s not at all what I said. I’m not talking here about their right to slam the door in the officer’s face: as I said before, I’m genuinely unclear on whether they have that right. I’m talking about the officer’s right to write them a citation for violating a law that they clearly didn’t violate. Clear now?
[/QUOTE]

The officer has the “right” to issue them a citation. If it is in error, or shows poor judgement on his part, we look to the courts to straighten it out. It is not for Joe Citizen to attempt to determine the correctness of a citation with the officer on the spot—certainly not to the point of making things worse. You say what you think, sure, but it is the officer’s discretion as to whether or not you wil receive a citation, not Joe Citizen. Again, if you think it is being issued in error or unfairly, your remedy resides in the courtroom.

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Sure. And if he gives out a ridiculous ticket even once, and then busts down a door and throws the perp to the ground, and then falsifies the report about the incident–if he does that EVEN ONCE–then he should be thrown off the force for the clear reason that you can’t serve and protect when you’re serving time.
[/QUOTE]

If he does all those things, even once, I agree. A ridiculous ticket one time alone would not, IMO, warrant his dismissal.

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
That’s true. The fact that they were not in violation of the citation means that an honest, fair, minimally competent cop would not have chosen to issue a citation.
[/QUOTE]

Likely so.

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
No, actually, he doesn’t have that right. He might mistakenly do it, and we all make mistakes. He especially doesn’t have the right to falsify the police report about the incident.
[/QUOTE]

He has the right to use his judgement and discretion to issue any citation he thinks ismerited. Of course, in exercising that right he runs the risk of looking like an ass and being reprimanded or worse. But he most certainly does not have the right to falsify a report.

I’ll leave it there. I think we are largely in agreement. The points of contention I think are mainly semantic, revolving around the word “right” and whether or not the Kuhns violated the statute. I don’t really know if they have—or care—as my issue all along is that if you are getting cited for a violation that you think is in error, you debate the merits of it in court. And you certainly do not make the cop’s job harder or lay hands on him. Period. Resisting arrest is illegal, as is tusseling with a cop, not too mention really, really dumb.

453

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Under this circumstance, what would be the disadvantage to calling for backup, getting a warrant, and going in that way, if that’s what was necessary?

[/quote]

I wasn’t addressing the relative advantages/disadvantages of various police procedures, I was just posing the question of what is acceptable procedure. There are certainly other situations where an officer can pursue a suspect fleeing a citation, and does not need a warrant to do so. I would assume the disadvantage of getting a warrant would be that it takes a lot of time and wouldn’t work in the case of trying to immediately pursue a suspect who has fled (or hidden behind a locked door in this case). The person could get away by the time the warrant is obtained. You couldn’t assume the guy is going to patiently wait at home until the cop comes back with the warrant.

You wouldn’t know who to name in the citation. What would you do, go back to the station, write a citation to “the guy who slammed the door”, and mail it?

Like I said, maybe there are ways of doing this. I don’t know. That’s the question.

Well you seem to think I’m defending that particular cop, which, if you’ve read any of my earlier posts, you’d know is absurd. I’m just questioning Kalhoun’s blanket assertion that a cop has “no right to enter your home” without a warrant. There is a thing known as “probable cause” which allows entry without a warrant. There ARE situations where a cop could have the right to enter your home. I’m not sure if this would be one of them, though.

454

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
I wasn’t addressing the relative advantages/disadvantages of various police procedures, I was just posing the question of what is acceptable procedure. There are certainly other situations where an officer can pursue a suspect fleeing a citation, and does not need a warrant to do so. I would assume the disadvantage of getting a warrant would be that it takes a lot of time and wouldn’t work in the case of trying to immediately pursue a suspect who has fled (or hidden behind a locked door in this case). The person could get away by the time the warrant is obtained. You couldn’t assume the guy is going to patiently wait at home until the cop comes back with the warrant.
[/quote]

In a case where you’re citing a guy for a non-violation of an unconstitutional statute, probably writing him a $50 ticket, yeah, I think you can safely assume that. Let’s stick to the story here instead of going off on generalities or tangents.

Yeah, that problem is pretty intractable. Cops don’t have access to county records of who owns the house. There’s no possible way they could cite the owner and, if he claims not to be the one the cop saw, bring him in for identification by the cop. I can’t imagine how they could get past this problem.

That’s not what probable cause is. Probable cause is what you need in order to get a warrant in the first place. Times when cops can enter without a warrant tend to be, if I understand correctly, when there’s imminent danger–and even then they risk losing access to any evidence gathered sans warrant.

Daniel

455

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
In a case where you’re citing a guy for a non-violation of an unconstitutional statute, probably writing him a $50 ticket, yeah, I think you can safely assume that.

[/quote]

We can safely assume that the guy would wait for the cop to come back with a warrant? Uh, o.k., whatever you say.

Oh, sorry - didn’t realize you were the thread police. You DO realize that the original topic is over, right? They already agreed to drop the charges, so there is no issue anymore. The thread has progressed beyond that (apparently leaving you behind).

Hmmm…if you know for a fact that that’s how it’s done, you might just say so, since I specifically posed that question. That would have been a much better response than being a snippy little bitch.

Wrong. It’s both.

Could be. But I’d like to hear this questioned answered by someone who actually knows what he’s talking about, which you clearly do not.

456

[QUOTE=Unauthorized Cinnamon]
Dio, I have to say that it is true, in my recollection, that you merely need intent to do the action involved, not intent to commit a crime, to be found guilty. I think the “willfully” in the statute applies to the action as well (i.e., he didn’t accidentally shut the door) rather than any knowledge of the criminality of the action.
[/QUOTE]

Shutting a door is not a crime. It only becomes a crime if you shut the door with the intent of resisting arrest.

If I leave to go on vacation to the other side of the state. Minutes before, unbeknownst to me, a warrant was issued for my arrest. The police show up and I’m not home. Am I guilty of eluding the police? No, because I didn’t intend to elude the police. My action may have had the effect of preventing the police from arresting me, but that wasn’t the intent behind my action.

457

I’ve read three or four versions of this story and have to side with The Kuhns. I think the cop had no right to burst into their house. I think he stuck his hand in the door as they were shutting it because it pissed him off they were declining to show their ID. To which, North Carolina doesn’t have a stop and identify law. IANAL, and I don’t know if this stop and identify law comes into play here, but it seems to me it would. There fore, the cop had no right to stop them from shutting their door.

To me, this was nothing more than a cop with a huge ego on a BIG power trip. And as usual, the police and law fluffers are in here sucking this cops ass as hard as they can suck, trying to make the logical people look like they don’t know shit with their “how do you know, you weren’t there” responses and the like.

Well, I don’t have to be there to get the gist of what happened here, I have enough common sense to see it for myself.

The cop abused his authority, period. </thread>

458

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
Wrong. It’s both.

[/quote]

Did you READ what you quoted? Those two items weren’t both defining probable cause; only the first one was dealing with probable cause. The second item describes another circumstance under which a search may occur.

YOu may be right, but that certainly doesn’t demonstrate it.

NO, no, you’re right: most people are likely to skip town, abandoning their home and all possessions, rather than be liable for a $50 ticket. Excellent point; I withdraw my argument.

Oh, look: Magellan’s friend! :rolleyes: If I were the thread police, your thread’s door would be knocked down by now, or haven’t you noticed what we’re talking about?

I don’t think you’re in a position to judge that, unfortunately.

Daniel

459

Incidentally, here’s a description of the circumstances under which the police may search your home without a warrant:

Note that “probable cause” doesn’t fall under any of these exceptions, except possibly the last one, which clearly doesn’t apply to this case and which is covered by my previous post on the topic.

Edit: This article covers the question in more detail of when the police may even enter your home (forget searching) without a warrant; again, there’s nothing in here that applies to the Kuhn’s case, unless you believe all the witnesses to the event were lying and that the cop in question is incredibly uncoordinated (that is, he was not able to pull his hand back from a door in time to have his fist be hit by the glass pain).

Daniel

460

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Incidentally, here’s a description of the circumstances under which the police may search your home without a warrant:

Note that “probable cause” doesn’t fall under any of these exceptions, except possibly the last one, which clearly doesn’t apply to this case and which is covered by my previous post on the topic.

Edit: This article covers the question in more detail of when the police may even enter your home (forget searching) without a warrant; again, there’s nothing in here that applies to the Kuhn’s case, unless you believe all the witnesses to the event were lying and that the cop in question is incredibly uncoordinated (that is, he was not able to pull his hand back from a door in time to have his fist be hit by the glass pain).

Daniel
[/QUOTE]

Ahem.

“Community caretaker.”