They weren’t breaking any laws. The statute is not enforceable as law. They were exercising protected free speech. Period.
Thank you for this.
I knew I was right. In your face, Jodi. 
Once they pinned their signs to the flag they were in violation of the North Carolina code. If they had put their signs up next to the flag they would not have been in violation of the North Carolina code.
I don’t particularly like this particular part of the NC code, but until it’s overturned by the state or Federal supreme court, it is the law of state and is enforceable by the state’s executive branch.
Is this what your argument has become? Is it really this weak? It doesn’t seem to jibe with your OP.
I think we can all agree that what ever happened here was a huge clusterfuck, and I think all of us will agree that the statute that precipitated this event sounds pretty damn unconstitutional. But you have argued that the deputy should have ignored the law (refuted), the deputy should have made a judgment on it’s constitutionality (refuted), that the deputy committed a crime pursuing those that violated the law (refuted), and that the deputy committed assault (not enough facts from the article to know*). What you got left?
*One thing I find interesting: Why was the deputy the only one to receive injuries?
It seems he was the only one to punch a window in. They also were trained officers dealing with a normal joe soap couple. They had guns and tasers and used the threat of the tasers to get control of the people. Why are you surprised they controlled the people without actual harm?
It already has been overturned by the Supreme Court. It is not valid law and no, it is not enforceable.
My OP is stronger now than it was yesterday. It is now beyond any credible dispute that a couple was assaulted by a deputy simply for expressing a political view which he didn’t like. It is not credible in the least that he was just trying to issue a routine citation.
I don’t remember seeing any of that stuff refuted. Sorry. Cops ignore bullshit, unconstitutional aws all the time. Cops had already decided that the couple in this particular case did not need to be cited for anything.
Because he was the only one to deliberately smash a window with his fist.
Now you’re just being stubborn. They were breaking an enacted law. All laws are enforceable, no matter how wrong headed. The executive branch can not and should not make that distinction.
Let me ask you again. Do you really think the executive branch should make judgments on the constitution? Ain’t you pissed off when Cheney says that he has that power? I know I am, so I can’t fault the cop for trying to write the citation and throw the thing to the courts.
It also occurs to me that the deputy may have done a good thing for the US. This is a bullshit law that should never have been written in the first place - but it was. By writing that citation, the deputy has allowed the couple to challenge the statute. It’s all they really needed. Why did they have to freak out? You article contains the quote:
The only way the damn thing is going to be struck down is if they go to court, which they got… now. Of course, they could have just accepted the damn ticket and then called the ACLU. That would have been the smart thing to do. It seems to me that the couple could have made this a lot easier on everybody.
Doesn’t matter. If the law is on the books, and you can write a citation for it, it is per se enforceable. You’re right though, that I can go to a property that has a violation, not write that violation because I have the discretion to give the owner a chance and fix the issue. If I go BACK to the premise, I also have the discretion to write the ticket if the owner wants to be a beat off about it. This is what’s know as an aggravation ticket. It’s aggravating to get, it’s aggravating to write, and it’s generally not done, that doesn’t mean though that the enforcement is immoral or illegal.
IANAL, but it is my understanding that as long as the state statute is on the books, it can be enforced until it is repealed. At least one SDMB lawyer agrees with this interpretation:
Pertinent to the roots of this clusterfuck is that the couple originally flew the flag upside down, had a friendly visit paid to them by a LEO, and had nothing come of it. It was only after they pinned signs to the flag that they gave the appearance of violating the state code.
The Supreme Court has already decided that this law is unConstitutional. It has already been adjudicated. It’s already over.
How did they feak out? They removed the flag. They closed the door. The deputy smashed the door down ad attacked them. The deputy is the one that freaked out, not them.
The quote from the sheriff’s office is dissembling, dishonest horsehit.
It looks to me like they did cooperate with everything. They took down the flag, They closed the door and THEN the deputy went beserk and broke into the home. What did the couple do to incite that?
Isn’t negative attention fom the community also free speech?
Plenty of laws are overturned by the S. Ct. without ever being repealed. I have already asked for clarification with a cite on this and other than DtC, have not had any bites. I think you’re probably wrong though. Just because a law is “on the books” does not make it per se enforceable. If that were the case, why didn’t Kansas pass a new segregation law after Brown? After that law as struck down, under Brown, pass a new one, and so on. Like I said, I would like some clarification, too.
No law, regardless of the obviousness of its likely unconstitutionality, is actually unconstitutional until a court determines that it is. There are several reasons for this, the most important of which is the principle that courts decide cases only on the facts and law presented to them.
The practical effect of a SCOTUS determination that a law is unconstitutional is that other states with the same/closely similar laws will usually either repeal them or make an executive decision not to enforce them – if only to avoid the court costs of attempting to defend their version of the law against certain defeat.
Sua
Sure, why do you ask? I never mentioned it. Read the passage you quote from me, “negative attention . . . from law eforcement.”
thanks.
I’ve never actually seen the latter happen, but I have seen plenty of accidents like the one I described. The only unusual thing about it would be the cop’s hand being right where the window in the door was, but if the door was closed with even a modest amount of force, the glass is going to break before the cop’s hand gets pushed back. Especially if he’s got his arm extended far enough for his elbow to lock. It seems the most likely sequence of events, because taking either side of the dispute’s arguments as true means that the other side was acting completely irrationally.
'Course, it’s not as sexy as fascist cop v. hippie freaks, so I doubt anyone’s going to pay much attention to it.
Good grief.
The government is required to prove its case. As an advocate for the accused, are you seriously suggesting I should substitute my OPINION about whether you’re telling the truth for a vigorous cross-examination? As long as I think you’re honest, I should let you get up on the stand and tell your story without attempts to get you to waver, change, or appear indecisive?
How certain should I be?
That’s quite a lot of power you’re ceding to me. What if the guy in the next cell has a more trusting lawyer? I guess he’s going away while my guy will get a break, because the trusting lawyer believed you and didn’t subject you to a strong cross, eh?
That’s not the way the system works. My job as a defense attorney was to provide a vigorous defense for my client within the bounds of the canons of ethics, regardless of what I might think. The SYSTEM is designed as a search for the truth, but defense counsel’s role in that system is not a search for the truth – it’s to be a vigorous advocate for his client. By doing so, and by being opposed by a vigorous advocate for the state armed with the state’s resources, we expect the system to reach a just result.
You find it morally repugnant? I suggest to you that you simply don’t understand the system. In the alternative, I suggest to you that if you’re ever accused of a crime, perhaps even a crime you didn’t commit, you won’t be sitting at the defense table whispering to your lawyer, “Don’t make that prosecution witness look bad – I think he might be telling the truth as he knows it.”
Are you not aware of statutes which are routinely ignored by law enforcement? Some states still have laws on the books prohibiting unmarried couples from living together. There are statutes some places prohibiting blow jobs or sodomy. No one ever gets cited for this stuff. The flag thing is right along those lines. It’s a statute which has already been rendered unenforceable by the Supreme Court.
Moreover, the couple in this case had already “fixed the issue,” as you put it, by removing the flag. Are you seriously going to tell me that anything they did warranted a sheriff’s deputy breaking down their door and physically attacking them? Bear in mind that his own version of the story has now been directly contradicted by a disinterested witness. Even his claim that they refused to give him ID is now suspect.
Harrassment is not free speech. Neither is physical assault.