OMG, a lawyer portraying a situation inaccurately in court? Say it isn’t so! What a crushing realization this must be for you, that lawyers at trial aren’t attempting to discover the unvarnished truth, but instead attempt to convince the jury to believe the argument they’re paid to present.
It almost makes one want to go back into the cave one must have been living in for their entire lives.
That is an interesting take, but I believe it to be an opinion piece written by a defense attorney, would you agree?
Well, you got your hope.
It’s interesting that you would make that argument only a few minutes after berating Carol Stream for playing semantic games. It really doesn’t matter what the name of a given law is, only the content of that law. “Deface” is probably the operative term here, and pinning signs on the flag could easily fall under that prohibition.
Mind you, I’m as against these laws as you are, but trying to will them away is simply self-delusion.
The bolded part in quotes is not, it is from a Supreme Court decision. Here’s a link and a full quote from about 3/4ths of the way down
It wasn’t hyperbole it was about taking someone els’s position to a logical extreme in order to make a point. It was obviously over your head, but that’s ok.
My objection to the word “desecration” has never been anything but a criticism of the language used in these laws. It is not, and never has been, an attempt at a legal argument. I’m just saying it’s a stupid word to use in a statute. I’m not saying the word is what makes it an invalid law.
No. The quote from Justice White is well known, and not controversial as a statement of legal ethics. What authority do you have for your position?
Bingo. Also delusional is expecting a deputy, assumed to be responding to a complaint, to be judge and jury. No one likes getting a ticket/citation, but fighting the deputy about it not the way to solve the issue.
So you think rape is the logical extreme of arrest? Get help, Dio. You aren’t just stupid, you may be dangerously insane.
The couple, IMHO, purposefully engaged in actions intended to provoke a response from their community. Unfortunately for them, the response wasn’t what they were hoping for. Seems to me that if you purposely set out to provoke people, you shouldn’t be too surprised when you succeed.
Count me amongst those who are frustrated by all levels of the government right now - - check my location for a hint at why - - but I’m content to exercise my frustrations at the voting booth, by writing my legislators, and by engaging the system in other ways. Flying a flag upside down with explanitory signs pinned to it isn’t going to get much accomplished for the greater good.
I see here a few people who seem to be apologizing for the fact that the officer involved may have been ignorant of the law. That is pretty troubling.
If by some stroke of divine intervention, you happen to get arrested for something, see how far an ignorance of the law defense gets you.
If the average citizen can’t use ignorance of the law as an excuse, why shouldn’t we hold law enforcement to that standard or maybe even a little higher standard?
Just a question about the flag burning statute. Unless I misread the thread (and I did just skim), the NC statute is unconstitutional though it has never been explicitly repealed by the S Ct. Is it the same as if I passed a law today in Georgia that said blacks had to go to different schools than whites? No court would have considered the law, but it’s unconstitutional under precedent. Is this wrong? I am confused. I am a lawyer but not a constitutional scholar, and as I have seen many lawyers on this board get their asses handed to them when they commented boldly on areas of the law outside their expertise, I thought I would just go ahead and ask.
Authority? None. Unfortunately, what you have shown to have solid legal support (and thanks for that) I find morally repugnant.
I’ve been the innocent bystander to have witnessed a crime, and I have had some slimeball attempt to impeach my credibility. No, not just my credibility in the context of the crime; my credibility in general. It didn’t work, and I’ll pat myself on the back and say that I made the attorney look like an ass, but I didn’t appreciate it. That is where I’m coming from, anyway. An honest witness shouldn’t have to see him or herself portrayed as a liar by someone who knows they are being honest to begin with.
Protest is a blunt tool, but it wories me that others might share your attitude that protestorsshould not be surprised if they attract negative attention or worse from law enforcement. It’s a chilling thought.
No, moron, it’s a logical extreme of assault. I was trying to determine at what point a citizen is allowed to defend himself or his family from a physical assault by a law enforcement officer. Where is the line between “resisting arrest” and justified self defense? It is my contention that the deputy who broke into that home and attacked that family was not just making an arrest but engaging in a felonious assault. Who knows what some unhinged psychopath with a gun is going to do once he’s in that house? They’re all just supposed to lay down and let him rape them and eat them or whatever else he wants to do?
No, you idiot. The officer isn’t ignorant of the law. But, (and how many times do we have to say this?) it is not his duty, nor should it be, to determine the constitutionality of the law. The legislature writes the laws, the cops enforce them, and the judges THEN decide whether or not they are constitutional. Cops need to know laws, which the deputy did. The specific statute IS on the books.
Sure, the legislature should have thought about the constitutionality of the law before they enacted the stupid thing. But that is not the deputy’s responsibility. Why can’t people get that? It’s US gov. 101. The only duty the deputy has is to enforce the laws that the duly elected legislative body enacted. HE IS NOT A JUDGE! Even if a law enforcement officer is convinced that a specific law is unconstitutional, he still must enforce it. It’s his job, as outlined in the same damn Constitution.
Got it?
It depends, doesn’t it, on the nature of the protest? The couple could have conveyed the same message without the flag and/or without breaking any statutes. I’m all for free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom to protest, etc., etc… I don’t think you should expect to believe that just because you’re protesting it should give you permission to break laws, ordinances, or other legal statutes. And, if you’re bummed that your choice of protest is against the law, you should first lobby to change the law, then protest.
Sorry if this link has already been given but there is a witness who disagrees with the cops statement.
Law enforcement has discretion as to what they want to cite or not cite. there are a lot of archaic laws still on the books which are routinely ignored by LE even though they could technically cite them if they wanted to (cohabitation laws for instance). Cops know which statutes are unenforceable and do not bother to try unless they selectively want to harrass somebody.