Clearly we disagree. Of course, you’re also disagreeing with most of the teachers, mentors, and other authority figures I had growing up, and I managed to graduate high school without getting arrested, so it’s not like I mind disagreeing with you.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
So what?
That still doesn’t suggest that the ordinary meaning of the word “obstruct” is the same as “any disagreement or displeasure.”
The claim you’re defending, by proxy, is the law is defined “…so broadly that any disagreement or displeasure becomes an arrestable offense.”
In the case you quote, the words used went beyond simple disagreement and displeasure; they were a lie, and one that sought to mislead the officer. It’s true that since the officer had not detained the speaker, that speaker was free to offer such a lie, and it’s true that this distinction may not be apparent on reading the statute – but it remains crystal clear that this conduct was not merely disagreement or displeasure, but a more active attempt to interfere.
So what law is defined so broadly that any disagreement or displeasure becomes an arrestable offense?
So what law is defined so broadly that any disagreement or displeasure becomes an arrestable offense?
[/QUOTE]
That law is so vague that the average person upon reading it would assume the law reaches further than it actually does and submit to the officer’s request rather than risk being arrested based on an ordinary meaning of the words.
That in turn means that a person who disagrees or expresses displeasure would assume, on a plain reading of the vague law, that the law reaches further than it actually does, and submit to the officer’s request rather than risk being arrested on an ordinary meaning of the words of the statute.
If you want to parse “any”, be my guest, but you’d be missing the forest for the trees.
He’s assigned to keep the piece at a middle school cafeteria. That’s a step down from traffic control at a park jogging trail.
<checks calendar>Oh wow its 2016.
That law is so vague that the average person upon reading it would assume the law reaches further than it actually does and submit to the officer’s request rather than risk being arrested based on an ordinary meaning of the words.
That in turn means that a person who disagrees or expresses displeasure would assume, on a plain reading of the vague law, that the law reaches further than it actually does, and submit to the officer’s request rather than risk being arrested on an ordinary meaning of the words of the statute.
If you want to parse “any”, be my guest, but you’d be missing the forest for the trees.
[/QUOTE]
No. The vast majority of Americans understand that the First Amendment protects their right to offer disagreement or displeasure in that circumstance.