No, it’s a pretty easy guess, I bet he also knew how to drive a car and had the ability to multiply single digit numbers. The flag burning decision by the Supreme Court was not some arcane, little known bit of jurisprudence which only an attorney would be expected to know. Anybody with a modicum of public awareness knows that flag desecration is protected free speech and I don’t believe for a second that this deputy didn’t know it.
We have every right to expect that law enforcement officers will know the laws that are to be enforced. It’s doubtful that we will ever see a police officer that knows them all, but that is their responsibility and should not become the burden of the people.
It is never acceptable for a policeman to enforce an unConstitutional law. If you think pinning something to a flag is bad, compare that to depriving a citizen of their Constitutional Rights. Which one would Thomas Jefferson have taken more seriously?
Really? I can’t think of a better place to pin my opinions! That’s actually a great idea. I can see it used as a symbol of free speech.
The couple would not have been able to close their door on his hand unless his hand was intruding into the space beyond their threshold and doorframe. If his hand had been outside the house (which is the only place it was authorized to be), they could not have closed the door on it.
I’m not certain, but I believe that if the police ask you for an ID, they must do it before they arrest you and read you your Miranda Rights.
Diogenes the Cynic, since there is no evidence that the policeman’s location in the Southland had anything to do with his stupidity of trying to enforce an unConstitutional law, would you mind restraining yourself from blaming his actions on his being a redneck asshole? It is just so damned smug.
I’ll just point to my mug shot and nod.
What always astounds me is how anyone could get behind the idea of punishing someone for making a political statement, while at the same time claiming to be patriotic. The very idea is completely opposed to everything this country supposedly stands for. How can people hold such diametrically opposed ideas in their brains without their heads exploding?
“Patriotism” is used to mean placing your loyalty to unconstitutional laws and actions above your loyalty to the constitution’s principles, pretty much 100% of the time that anyone invokes it.
That ain’t what Thomas Jefferson meant when he wrote:
and
and
Patriotism didn’t always mean you unquestioningly love your government and those who carry guns in its name.
Unless he’s Japanese.
My point being, a lot of folks took it for granted it was okay to shoot and kill Hattori even without provocation. Sauce for the Japanese exchange goose is sauce for North Carolina’s sheriff gander?
Sailboat
Why not? The fact that they weren’t ‘attacked’ for flying the flag upside down was clearly in the story you linked to and you couldn’t get that, but you expect every deputy to keep an eye on the Supreme Court decisions? Pull that redwood out of your eye first…
When dealing with misdemeanors, such as the jaywalking I referenced, if LEOs tried for 100% enforcement, our city coffers would be filled and they would not have time to look after any other crime. I never want a LEO to show discretion around which murder or grand theft to pursue (although they do, with some cases having greater priority than others). However, there are far too many laws and ordinances that each and every one can constantly be enforced.
I’ve bartended for 7 years and have seen many a police vs. drunk customer altercation. In my experience they don’t lie, but they do often shade their language to avoid litigation, and other police officers DO protect their own.
Right. And I overlooked something important earlier: I was assuming the circumstances were comparable. If you jaywalk once with no cars anywhere near you, and do it again and cause an accident, there is a good reason for the police to treat the two situations differently.
I understand the practical aspect of it. Even if there were enough police to enforce all the laws, police are human beings and ought to have the ability to know when it’s not necessary to write someone up. Even if there was a flag law and even if the Kuhns were violating it, what’s the point of citing them? Asking the courts to settle it so they can be made to pay legal fees and contest this ridiculous point?
There is something very important here that your emotions are getting in the way of. The cops can arrest you for a misdemeanor. Sure, you don’t have to provide ID, but if you’re being cited for a criminal act, even if it’s just a midemeanor, the cop is well within the law to arrest you for the crime in the citation. And if you resist that… well, that’s resisting arrest idn’t? They weren’t arrested for failure to show ID. They were arrested for the flag statute, among other charges. They probably could have avoided that arrest if they had shown their IDs and enabled the cop to process the court summons (ie the citation) on site rather than at the station, but that’s legally irrelevant.
No where in the article does it state that the deputies hand had glass in it. What it says is: "Sorrells said Scarborough suffered some scrapes and cuts to his hand and returned to duty later Wednesday. " You could make the equal argument that his injuries support his story. If he punched through the glass, he’s probably going to need stitches and wouldn’t be able to return to work. If he used an object to break the glass, he wouldn’t have suffered injuries at all. The injuries sound consistent with someone slamming the door on his hand, but not hard enough to break it.
Now, I don’t know what the fuck happened that day in North Carolina, other than it was a complete clusterfuck, but the batshit crazy liberal prejudgement of Diogenes the Cynic has got to be taken to task.
Oh, fer chrissakes. When a cop is issuing you a citation, you are under arrest. Let me repeat – when a cop is issuing you a citation, you are under arrest. Let me cite the Supreme Court –
Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806, 809-10 (1996).[sup]1[/sup]
When the couple attempted to evade the issuance of the citation by retreating into their house, they were resisting arrest, and the cop had the right to pursue them - even to the extent of breaking into their home. He has probable cause - he saw you resisting arrest.
Thus, even if the couple was telling the truth, the cop acted properly by going in after them. Do you really think that if you were pulled over for a traffic stop so a cop could issue you a citation, you could evade the citation by driving away and going into your house? Of course, not - by doing so, you have resisted arrest and committed a criminal act, and the cop has the right to pursue you.
Granted, if the couple was telling the truth, the assault charge is bogus, but the other charges are not.
Sua
[sup]1[/sup] Other Supreme Court cases note that a traffic stop arrest is not a custodial arrest; the right to an attorney and to be brought before a magistrate, etc., do not apply.
Plural of anecdote is not data, and yadda yadda yadda.
I spent time as a criminal defense attorney, where virtually every trial involved trying to show a jury or judge that a police officer was lying. In the process, I developed a pretty good sense in most cases of when they actually WERE lying.
Yes, some cops lied routinely. No question about it.
However, I found them in the minority. It was unusual. The strong majority of police officers I encountered would tell the truth, even if it didn’t particularly help their case. Now, this is not to say they were falling all over themselves to be helpful to my side, or even to be scrupulously neutral observers. They obviously had a side to support and a story to tell. But under direct questioning, yes-or-no, did this happen, I found it to be rare that a cop would simply lie.
Observation number two: this is more ephermal and hard to define, but… when I came across the cops that did lie, I wasn’t the only one that knew about it. The judge could tell. The prosecutor could tell. His fellow officers could tell. Now, I admit I never once had another officer “throw a guy under the bus” and contradict sworn testimony. But they were loathe to confirm it. When a cop lied about a sequence of events, and I got another officer on the stand, it would usually be a flurry of, “I wasn’t in a position to observe that…” or “I was not able to hear that conversation…” In contrast, when Cop #1 was telling the truth, typically Cop #2 would be on the stand confirming everything confidently.
What often happened was that such cops quickly developed a reputation. And judges - though they, too, seldom directly “threw a cop under the bus” and said that they found the cop’s testimony not credible, would start bending over backwards to find little technicalities to drop the case… judges who I would have sworn forget that the Fourth Amendment even existed suddenly became Earl Freakin’ Warren in their concern for the rights of the accused.
All of which meant that prosecutors found reasons to not use those cops as witnesses, and drop cases that depended on those cops’ testimony.
Perfect system? No. Of course not. Do my experiences prove anything about this case? Not remotely.
But given the discussion about cops and lying, I thought perspective from someone with my background might be interesting.
Before I assume too much, and develop an even lower opinion of you, let me ask a clarifying question: Do you mean to say that you, as a matter of strategy, routinely tried to portray people you knew to be honest as liars?
Someone is inevitably going to explain to me that there is an obligation to provide the best possible defense. Before doing so, folks, please find a reputable cite stating that this defense should include known inaccuracies. Thanks.
Just saying that what you claim is unlikely happend to me. I’m sure if it happened to someone else in this thread they’d have spoken up, too. Has nothing to do with disagreeing with you.
Maybe he did know it. But laws can only be evaluated by the judicial branch. Think for a second. That is, if you even have that ability. Surely, you don’t want the executive branch (that would be the deputy for those not keeping up) to have the power to determine the constitutionality of specific laws? I doubt you’re a big fan of when the current administration occupying the upper levels of the executive branch does it, so what is it? Does the separation of powers only apply when it suits you?
In that, I think you and Mr. Cheney might have something in common.
“I think the officer did the appropriate thing by stating his intention to simply issue a citation and let it be worked out in court,” Sorrells said.
Amusingly, Buncombe County originally contributed its name to the English language as a synonym for fraudulent, posturing officialdom.
Keep talking. The more you make it clear that you didn’t understand a word of my post, the better.
**Bricker ** can defend himself on this one. But as far as cites:
(Emphasis added.) http://www.cardozo.yu.edu/life/winter2001/bennett/
There are restrictions on knowingly presenting perjured testimony. See, http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1084&context=lawfaculty
You endorse asinine hyperbole as a logical test of limits, and I’ve tested your endorsement with yet more asinine hyperbole.
Hopefully I did misunderstand your post, and you aren’t the fucking idiot I believe you are.