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

[Martin_Hyde]

[QUOTE=Marley23]
The reason is what I mentioned a few posts back: selective enforcement of the law. People have every right to complain about that, as it’s unjust.
[/QUOTE]

Sure they do. They don’t have the right to assault a police officer to express their discontent, though.

The key issue here, to me, is why the cop broke into the house. Did he do it because he was assaulted, and then went into the house to try and effect an arrest? Or did he do it because he was mad that the door was shut on him and he wanted to burst in?

The first case is entirely defensible, if the Kuhn’s just slammed the door on the cop’s hand, with no warning and et cetera, I view that as an indefensible act (everything else aside)–and the cop was justified in going in to arrest him.

The second, I don’t know, I need to know more about the law to comment on it. Do you have the right to shut the door on a cop who is issuing a citation? Maybe you do, and the cop just has to put the citation in the mail box. I’d need more info to decide on that, even if you didn’t have the right to shut the door nonviolently, I do not think the best response from the cop is to then break into the house and wrestle the property owner–the proper procedure would be to call for back up and try to get an arrest warrant (if that was justified at that point.) Unless there was some strongly compelling reason to burst the door down, I’m not sure that’s for the best–but I’m not a LEO so I don’t know the standard procedure in such a case.

The key issue to me is who is telling the truth.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

[QUOTE=John Mace]
What seems more likely is that they were responding to a complaint.
[/quote]

It was a meritless complaint and the couple had already removed the flag anyway. There was no legitimate issue for the cop to deal with, nor did he have any obligation to write what he had to have known was an unenforceable ticket (they do have discretion) and the couple had not even desecrated any flags in the first place. There was no reason to write the ticket except to antagonize them.

Have you read the statute, btw?

No. Does it define flying a flag upside down (a military distress signal) as “desecration?”

[Gfactor]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]

No. Does it define flying a flag upside down (a military distress signal) as “desecration?”
[/QUOTE]

Here is is, for what it’s worth:

§ 14‑381. Desecration of State and United States flag.

It shall be unlawful for any person willfully and knowingly to cast contempt upon any flag of the United States or upon any flag of North Carolina by public acts of physical contact including, but not limited to, mutilation, defiling, defacing or trampling. Any person violating this section shall be deemed guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.

The flag of the United States, as used in this section, shall be the same as defined in 4 U.S.C.A. 1 and 4 U.S.C.A. 2. The flag of North Carolina, as used in this section, shall be the same as defined in G.S. 144‑1. (1917, c. 271; C.S., s. 4500; 1971, c. 295; 1993, c. 539, s. 253; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)

G.S. 14-381

And here is the statute on citations:

§ 15A‑302. Citation.

(a) Definition. – A citation is a directive, issued by a law enforcement officer or other person authorized by statute, that a person appear in court and answer a misdemeanor or infraction charge or charges.

(b) When Issued. – An officer may issue a citation to any person who he has probable cause to believe has committed a misdemeanor or infraction.

(c) Contents. – The citation must:

(1) Identify the crime charged, including the date, and where material, identify the property and other persons involved,

(2) Contain the name and address of the person cited, or other identification if that cannot be ascertained,

(3) Identify the officer issuing the citation, and

(4) Cite the person to whom issued to appear in a designated court, at a designated time and date.

(d) Service. – A copy of the citation shall be delivered to the person cited who may sign a receipt on the original which shall thereafter be filed with the clerk by the officer. If the cited person refuses to sign, the officer shall certify delivery of the citation by signing the original, which shall thereafter be filed with the clerk. Failure of the person cited to sign the citation shall not constitute grounds for his arrest or the requirement that he post a bond. When a citation is issued for a parking offense, a copy shall be delivered to the operator of a vehicle who is present at the time of service, or shall be delivered to the registered owner of the vehicle if the operator is not present by affixing a copy of the citation to the vehicle in a conspicuous place.

(e) Dismissal by Prosecutor. – If the prosecutor finds that no crime or infraction is charged in the citation, or that there is insufficient evidence to warrant prosecution, he may dismiss the charge and so notify the person cited. An appropriate entry must be made in the records of the clerk. It is not necessary to enter the dismissal in open court or to obtain consent of the judge.

(f) Citation No Bar to Criminal Summons or Warrant. – If the offense is a misdemeanor, a criminal summons or a warrant may issue notwithstanding the prior issuance of a citation for the same offense. If a defendant fails to appear in court as directed by a citation that charges the defendant with a misdemeanor, an order for arrest for failure to appear may be issued by a judicial official.

(g) Preparation of Form. – The form and content of the citation is as prescribed by the Administrative Officer of the Courts. The form of citation used for violation of the motor vehicle laws must contain a notice that the driving privilege of the person cited may be revoked for failure to appear as cited, and must be prepared as provided in G.S. 7A‑148(b). (1973, c. 1286, s. 1; 1975, c. 166, ss. 3, 27; 1983, c. 327, s. 4; 1985, c. 385; c. 764, s. 4; 1989, c. 243, s. 1; 2003‑15, s. 1.)

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_15a/

[CarnalK]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
It was a meritless complaint and the couple had already removed the flag anyway. There was no legitimate issue for the cop to deal with, nor did he have any obligation to write what he had to have known was an unenforceable ticket (they do have discretion) and the couple had not even desecrated any flags in the first place. There was no reason to write the ticket except to antagonize them.

No. Does it define flying a flag upside down (a military distress signal) as “desecration?”
[/QUOTE]

**

Dio**, sometimes you just gotta slow the fuck down. It says in your own linked article that the upside down part was not the issue. As stated there, and I was going to bring up before I actually RTFA, it’s the the pinning of extra signs/slogans to the flag is what they thought fell under the statutes.

Quite honestly, I’m not much of a patriot and perhaps because of that, but I can get behind rules that disallow people from pinning their opinions to the flag.

[Darth_Nader]

It shall be unlawful for any person willfully and knowingly to cast contempt upon any flag of the United States…

That can’t even pass the laugh test.

[John_Mace]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
It was a meritless complaint and the couple had already removed the flag anyway. There was no legitimate issue for the cop to deal with, nor did he have any obligation to write what he had to have known was an unenforceable ticket (they do have discretion) and the couple had not even desecrated any flags in the first place. There was no reason to write the ticket except to antagonize them.

No. Does it define flying a flag upside down (a military distress signal) as “desecration?”
[/QUOTE]

Your article makes it clear that the desecration was not simply because it was flown upside down. See my post #76 where I quoted that part of your article. Whether or not the complaint was “meritless” is a matter a of opinion. I have no idea whether the cop thought the citation was enforcible or not, and neither do you.

[CarnalK]

John Mace, quit stalking me!

[gonzomax]

[QUOTE=Jodi]
This is complete and utter bullshit. I have worked with law enforcement for years now, including reviewing at length the training they receive. I have never yet met one who was “taught what to say to get a conviction” or who was a “professional liar.” You can slag off the whole field with that broad brush of yours, but that doesn’t mean they are as a class without personal integrity or professionalism. So enjoy your delusions of persecution by jack-booted thugs, but unless you’ve got some cite to back this up, it’s nothing but crap.
[/QUOTE]

Not according to the lawyers I know. They know conviction rates are important . A cop will not just say Yep I got pissed and slammed my hand into the door. If you believe that ,sorry for you.
\ I went to court and the lawyer muttered under his breath when the cop testified Let the lying begin.

[brossa]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
It was a meritless complaint and the couple had already removed the flag anyway.
[/QUOTE]

The article that you linked to states that they removed the flag after they were told that they were going to be issued a citation. The flag was in place when the officer arrived. If a cop pulls me over for speeding, it is not a valid defense to claim ‘well, when he walked up to my car, I was actually going 0 mph, not 80’.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Your article makes it clear that the desecration was not simply because it was flown upside down.
[/quote]

I don’t think attaching things to the flag meets any of the definitions under the statute either.

See my post #76 where I quoted that part of your article. Whether or not the complaint was “meritless” is a matter a of opinion. I have no idea whether the cop thought the citation was enforcible or not, and neither do you.

The Supreme Court has already decided that the statute was unenforceable. If the ddeputy didn’t know that, he should have. It doesn’t sound like this is a statute that is routinely enforced.

[John_Mace]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I don’t think attaching things to the flag meets any of the definitions under the statute either.
[/quote]

I’m sure the state of North Carolina will give your opinion all the consideration it is due.

The Supreme Court has already decided that the statute was unenforceable. If the ddeputy didn’t know that, he should have. It doesn’t sound like this is a statute that is routinely enforced.

Yes, the article clearly states the law is rarely enforced. So what? That doesn’t prove that cop was trying to harass the couple.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

[QUOTE=brossa]
The article that you linked to states that they removed the flag after they were told that they were going to be issued a citation. The flag was in place when the officer arrived. If a cop pulls me over for speeding, it is not a valid defense to claim ‘well, when he walked up to my car, I was actually going 0 mph, not 80’.
[/QUOTE]

Removing the flag was already above and beyond anything the couple was obliged to do. The issue, such as it was (some complaining, dickwad neighbors) had been resolved. The statute was bullshit anyway. the deputy knew it was bullshit. The citation was not enforceable. Once the flag was down, he should have had the decency to just fuck off. Instead, he decided to escalate matters. There was no reason for him to do that execpt to be a redneck asshole.

[Gfactor]

Couple things:

1. In United States v. Eichman , the Court held that *Texas v. Johsnon * required it to invalidate the Flag Protection Act, which read:

(a)(1) Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

  "(2) This subsection does not prohibit any conduct consisting of the disposal of a flag when it has become worn or soiled.

  "(b) As used in this section, the term `flag of the United States' means any flag of the United States, or any part thereof, made of any substance, of any size, in a form that is commonly displayed."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=496&invol=310

Johnson involved a statute that read:

[a] person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly desecrates . . . [a] national flag," where “desecrate” meant to "deface, damage, or otherwise physically mistreat in a way that the actor knows will seriously offend one or more persons likely to observe or discover his action.

*Id. *

The statute in question is clearly unenforceable under current First Amendment doctrine. And while this particular statute has not been invalidated by a court, it seems pretty clear that that’s only because it hasn’t been enforced. As the Court noted in Eichman,

Although Congress cast the Flag Protection Act of 1989 in somewhat broader terms than the Texas statute at issue in Johnson, the Act still suffers from the same fundamental flaw: It suppresses expression out of concern for its likely communicative impact.

2. It seems apparent from the statute on the issuance of citations that the ID’s weren’t necessary, although we can’t be sure the officer knew this, or that he wasn’t required by department procedure to ask for the ID.

3. Ok. I just had to share this: “Firing a shotgun at the officer under the existing circumstances was clearly unreasonable and excessive force.” State v. King (1974).

North Carolina law seems pretty clear that there is a privilege to resist certain kinds of unlawful arrest. There is some authority that it doesn’t apply to non-arrest police conduct. For example, in* State v. Sampley* (1983):

Defendant had been a witness in Superior Court in a criminal case against his stepfather for communicating threats to defendant. Judge Rouse had directed a verdict of not guilty. Defendant had then risen and said, “Your honor, I am a reasonable man.” Judge Rouse thereupon told the deputy sheriff serving as courtroom bailiff to arrest defendant if he said anything else.

Defendant left the courtroom; and shortly thereafter his step-father entered it and told Judge Rouse, “Your honor, that man is going to kill me.” Judge Rouse instructed the bailiff to “go outside and see if you cannot keep peace,” or words to that effect.

As the bailiff proceeded down the aisle toward the courtroom door, defendant entered the courtroom. The bailiff took him by the elbow, pointed him toward the door, and said, “Ted, let’s talk outside.” As they exited the courtroom, defendant “jerked his arm away” and said, “Let go of my [expletive deleted] arm.” He then “came back towards [the bailiff’s] face,” and the bailiff “ducked to miss [his] elbow.”

When they were outside the courtroom the bailiff told defendant he was under arrest and placed a handcuff on one of defendant’s wrists. Defendant thereupon kicked the bailiff in the groin. Two police officers came from the courtroom to assist the bailiff, and defendant commenced flailing and kicking violently. Defendant kicked the two police officers and the bailiff during the general melee which ensued.

Defendant testified that as he entered the courtroom the bailiff approached him, grabbed him by the arm, spun him around and “headed” him in the direction of the door. Upon reaching the door he tried to pull his arm free, and the bailiff increased his force and propelled him through the door. He could not recall what happened outside the door. He did recall struggling, and admitted he could have hit or kicked the officers. He did not recall the bailiff telling him he was under arrest for assault, but acknowledged that “[o]utside the door [the bailiff] could have possibly said that.”

The Court upheld the defendant’s conviction for resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer, noting:

The uncontroverted evidence thus established that defendant was not placed under arrest until he had assaulted a deputy sheriff by swinging his elbow at him. When that assault occurred, then, no arrest had taken place; and defendant thus could not have been entitled to use force against the officer for the purpose of resisting an unlawful arrest.

The evidence also established that defendant did assault a deputy sheriff by swinging his elbow at him, either offensively or in trying to free himself; and that this assault occurred while the deputy sheriff was discharging or attempting to discharge a duty of his office, viz., responding, in his capacity as courtroom bailiff, to instructions from the presiding judge to preserve order and keep the peace. This conduct by defendant violated G.S. 14-33(b)(4), and his arrest therefor was thus lawful and proper.

The force which defendant applied from that point forward was therefore in resistance to a lawful arrest, and it could not be excused as “necessary to prevent the unlawful restraint of his liberty.” Mobley, supra. The court thus properly declined to rule as a matter of law that defendant had the right to use reasonable force to resist the arrest. It also properly declined to give the requested instruction to that effect, because the evidence did not support it. State v. Bailey, 254 N.C. 380, 386, 119 S.E. 2d 165, 170 (1961).

No error.

Whether they had the right to resist or not will depend on the facts, which are disputed.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

[QUOTE=John Mace]
I’m sure the state of North Carolina will give your opinion all the consideration it is due.
[/quote]

My opinion? I’m just reading from the statute. Nothing in the statute prohibits attaching things to the flag.

Yes, the article clearly states the law is rarely enforced. So what? That doesn’t prove that cop was trying to harass the couple.

Yes it does. This is not a law that the state takes seriously (because anyone with any brains know that the charges could never stand up to a constitutional challenge). Law enforcement had already een to he premises previously and had neither written a citation or asked the family to take down the flag. That shows me that this was a bit of selective harrassment and little else.

[CarnalK]

Dio, the very title of your thread shows you didn’t even read your own linked article. Howzabout you start a GD topic over whether any state Flag desecration laws are still in effect. Or whatever*, wild man.

*do it here is an option, I guess.

[Carol_Stream]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
The Supreme Court has already decided that the statute was unenforceable. If the ddeputy didn’t know that, he should have.
[/QUOTE]

Bullshit. Every deputy from Mayberry to Podunk is supposed to be well-versed in Supreme Court decisions? Talk about unreasonable expectations.

[John_Mace]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
My opinion? I’m just reading from the statute. Nothing in the statute prohibits attaching things to the flag.
[/quote]

The statute is extremely vague. It could mean almost anything.

Yes it does. This is not a law that the state takes seriously (because anyone with any brains know that the charges could never stand up to a constitutional challenge). Law enforcement had already een to he premises previously and had neither written a citation or asked the family to take down the flag. That shows me that this was a bit of selective harrassment and little else.

Not necessarily. If you look at the chronology, it’s likely that the alleged desecration didn’t occur until after the first officer had been there. He went because he thought there might be something wrong (sign of distress). More than likely, they put the signs on after that so people would understand what they were protesting.

I’m not claiming I know that for sure, but you don’t know for sure that the signs were on the flag when the first cop went there either.

Removing the flag was already above and beyond anything the couple was obliged to do. The issue, such as it was (some complaining, dickwad neighbors) had been resolved. The statute was bullshit anyway. the deputy knew it was bullshit. The citation was not enforceable. Once the flag was down, he should have had the decency to just fuck off. Instead, he decided to escalate matters. There was no reason for him to do that execpt to be a redneck asshole.

Except that we don’t know who escalated matters first.

[Wendell_Wagner]

Did this deputy intend to issue citations for every violation of flag etiquette he sees? I don’t know what the flag law is, but I know that I frequently see violations of flag etiquette that nobody does anything about. In contrast, flying a flag upside down, let alone burning a flag, must be extremely rare.

You’re never supposed to fly a flag that’s gotten ragged. You’re never supposed to fly a flag in the rain. You’re never supposed to fly a flag at night unless the flag is spotlighted. I see violations of these rules quite often.

[Skywatcher]

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
How in the fuck do you slam a door on someone’s hand, break the glass pane of the door, and cut the hand? Is he contending that he held his hand in midair, inside the doorway, and failed to move the hand out of the way as the door closed, and instead of pushing his hand back, the glass of the door actually broke? Maybe if you braced your arm and held it in place with enough force, you could get that to happen, but accidentally? That ranks right up there with, “He hit my fist with his nose”. :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
I once put my entire arm through the window of a door that was closing because I was pissed off and didn’t realize what I was doing.

[askeptic]

[QUOTE=Wendell Wagner]
You’re never supposed to fly a flag that’s gotten ragged. You’re never supposed to fly a flag in the rain. You’re never supposed to fly a flag at night unless the flag is spotlighted. I see violations of these rules quite often.
[/QUOTE]

Bullshit, thats all custom not law. I am an American I can fly the flag ragged in the rain at night with no light. That is one of the great things about this country that flag waiving dip shits do not understand. We don’t have a “Dear Leader” or a king or a tzar nor do we have to show respect for the flag. The fact that people can spit on our flag is what makes it great. Make flag burning illegal and I will burn every fucking one I can get my hands.