It’s refreshing to see Diogenes the Cynic go balls out irrational. You go girl, fight the power! I’m with you 100%, the cop was wrong for even giving a shit about the flag!
Again, this all depends on the state you are living in.
And a cop coming up to you and beating you “out of the blue” isn’t an act of arrest, it’s assault. In the case in question it’s quite possible that the cop did have probably cause. Remember, he wasn’t originally trying to arrest them, just give them a citation. Exactly what happened after that, we don’t know. We do know, however, that they resisted being cited (even they agree to that), so what more “probable cause” does the cop need? There was clear evidence that they were in violation of the flag desecration law-- that was visible form the street.
Neeever mind.
Well you notice he’s not saying anything. Cut the guy some slack. Maybe he’s thinking about what has been posted. What gets under peoples skin is different for everyone. I’d bet you have a couple of issues that get you plenty pissed.
There’s a right to self defense against wrongful arrest in the common law, but most states have abrogated that right. See, for instance, State v Hobson (Wisc. 1998)
They didn’t resist being cited, they refused to provide ID, as is their right.
Oh sure, plenty. This is one of them. I agree with Diogenes the Cynic for purely emotional reasons. I just like watching him go balls out irrational, as I said.
That there is a law making a graven image sacrosanct, I find to be morally repulsive, but there is. The fact that in supposedly heavily God-Fearing, good Christian North Carolina, they don’t understand that the flag is just another pagan idol, disturbs me.
But…that has no bearing at all on whether or not the redneck cop or militant hippy was in the right, legally.
John, I was specifically only responding to the assertion made by Giles that resisting a wrongfull arrest was illegal. I specifically refrained from speculating about the case in the OP.
There seems to be conflict of testimony as to how the glass in the door got broken. He says it happened when they slammed the door on him. They say he smashed the glass himself AFTER they closed the door. I’d like to know if the deputy has any evidence besides his own testimony that this couple slammed the door on his hand.
The fact that they did take the flag down suggest to me that they weren’t just belligerant hippies trying to make headlines.
It seems much more likely that someone would break the window on a door by striking it rather than having it strike their hand. I find that aspect of the cop’s story pretty dubious.
Here’s Roberts v. Swain
http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/1997/960656-1.htm
I don’t know…does a person have a right to refuse to provide ID to a police officer in North Carolina? And to what extent is providing identification neccesary for an officer to write a citation? I’m not being rhetorical here. I don’t know what NC law says about these.
Perhaps the news about the unconstitutionality of flag desecration hasn’t yet made it to the Great State of North Carolina.
That not withstanding, the officer demanded ID. The court HAS ruled (Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada) that if ID is requested, you must comply.
The courts half-assed decision on flag desecration not withstanding, you’re required to show ID when asked. Good enough for me.
And Gonzomax. That’s a broad brush you’re painting with, and, frankly, it’s a bullshit assertion.
The case I mentioned (and you linked to, even though I still can’t reach those servers) does say that the 4th Amendment means that a person does not have to provide their SSN, which is what was being demanded by the officers at the Police Station.
Stop with the hyperbole, you’re better than that.
The officer is then COMMITTING a crime, and as such, despite his office, you may intercede with the appropriate level of force.
In Nevada, if the police stop you because they believe you might be involved in a crime, you have an obligation to provide your identity. You do not have to provide it in the form of any official government identification, however you do have to verbally state who you are. If you’re driving, of course, the police can require that you present your driver’s license to them. The SCOTUS ruled on the Nevada law not too long ago, and found that it was in fact, constitutionally okay. Some states have adopted similar laws, I don’t have a list of which states have and which states have not.
The Nevada law makes it a crime to refuse to identify yourself (if you are being questioned because the police believe you might be involved in a crime) even if you are factually innocent of any other crime, refusing to identify is a crime in and of itself in Nevada.
That is just in the case of “police stops” not a situation where the police have placed you under arrest or where the police are writing you a citation. I would imagine that you do have to identify yourself in some manner when you are under arrest, otherwise how could the police process the arrest? I’d also imagine you would need to provide identity if being issued certain types of citations, some citations are against a person specifically so a person needs to be named. Parking tickets are a different story, because the person who owns the car is responsible for them, so the officer doesn’t need to know the name of the owner or who parked it there, that is information available to them already because of license plates. In the case of property owners, it would also not be necessary to get a citation for certain crimes, but what if the people who committed the crime are renters? I’d think in such a case it would be important to have the name of the people you are actually citing, not just their address and the information on record concerning who owns the property. An example would be holding a party where underaged people are being served alcohol, my experience has always been that the people charged are the persons specifically there at the party, not the person who might own the property (if they are a land lord) nor even necessarily the persons on the lease.
I can refer you to a few websites. :o
I like your style.
Asking an extreme question in order to better understand the limit of a doctrine is a rather ordinary part of reasonable debate. It can also be a way to reveal the absurdity of many absolute statements.
So when you complain about such hypotheticals you just make yourself look silly.
Right, although we don’t know what ID the officer was asking of the Kuhns, other than:
So, I don’t know if the Kuhns were required to provide info, assuming it didn’t include their SSN.
My WAG is that the cop had his hand extended through the doorway, right where the window on the door would be located. The homeowner slams the door in the cop’s face, not realizing where his hand is, and the cop’s hand goes through the window. From the cop’s point of view, he’s just been assaulted, and is justified in entering the home and arresting the homeowner. But from the homeowner’s point of view, he just closed the front door, and suddenly the cop puts his fist through the window, then busts in and grabs him. Neither side is lying, and no one’s really at fault. Just a dumb accident and a big misunderstanding.