The Law on Cursing at Cops
themarshallproject.org
themarshallproject.org
The cop got to flaunt his ego and show up the uppity citizen who backtalked him. He still won, even if he "lost" in the end.
You want good and fair outcomes from the police force? Then be respectful, but also support a justice system which won't screw someone over for just having a bad moment.
The US police has lost my respect, because there are so many instances of police getting offended at flipped birds - none of which I'm responsible.
They will continue to be paid - using monies from taxes and bonds and civil asset forfeiture. The will continue to demand raises, and it will continue to put pressure on the citizens. You and I don't have to do anything, there is nothing to do. Anything that don't last forever, won't.
Completely wrong. It is how change happens. If we accept this bad behavior, it becomes ingrained, and we all suffer.
Having the power to waste someone's time is too much power.
People might laugh at the idea above but we're operating with a policing structure that developed a long time before video recording and conferencing technology became available or cheap enough to be embedded with every officer. We have an abundance of people versed in criminal and civil law. Could you not automatically form a quorum of staff versed in legal matters from across the city/state/country to quickly give the thumbs up to an arrest over video conference? Sort of like a Mechanical Turk for legal matters? They could operate from a call center or home.
Imagine the benefits of this to regional areas where local/district courts have fewer resources than their city-based brethren.
Only if there are never repercussions for misusing it. If police got in trouble for detaining people who hadn't done anything wrong, it would happen less.
Criminals are savvy. They'd game it and people would capitulate.
In principle, any limitation placed on police could wind up helping criminals; nonetheless there must be some limitations. Things like citizen review boards would probably be a good idea here.
We shouldn't short-cut the legal process with a quick, possibly faulty process.
It is if they lose their job because they're in jail. It is if they don't have anyone else to look after their kid while they're in jail. It is if they can't afford court fees.
Being processed in a time frame that matches the severity of the crime seems more fitting.
[1] http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-basics-plea-barga...
6th amendment to the US constitution:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the
right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury
of the State and district wherein the crime shall have
been committed, which district shall have been previously
ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the
witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for
obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
Assistance of Counsel for his defenseThe problem isn't me being pulled over and questioned. I can brush it off as an unfortunate side-effect of an otherwise beneficial solution. Those people that live day by day and have no allowance to deal with this shit literally have their lives ruined by such an interaction.
Says someone with a disturbing lack of empathy.
PS once they put me in the cop car and I knew they were seriously going to take me to jail, the cop in the car said "I bet you hate it when men grope your sister..." as his partner was frisking her outside the car... Real quality humans.
One, yes crude language is protected speech.
On the other hand people who deal with lots of grief hourly deserve some kind of protection from daily verbal abuse.
On the other hand, some of the abuse is likely attributable to "arrogance" on the public servant. So perhaps these people should receive training and become fireable, or at least reassigned if if becomes chronic. But being public employees and in a labor union, that's not going to happen.
Still, I understand its a tall order to ask people to put up with awful abuse day after day. Imagine you are a woman and the majority of people you process through are unenthusiastic males. You are bound to get fed up.
Only cops get to pull this sort of crap in response. Find yourself a retail clerk and ask them how much abuse they have to quietly take, every day; it'll shock you.
Imagine if you had to deal with people like this directly, some of which could be actual violent people (maybe didn't take their meds, had a bad day, whatever.)
To get a glimpse, imagine next time you get on a bus, or a coffee that someone you don't know, a stranger says, to you, "Hey asshole, you're in my way." Maybe you inadvertently took their spot. Now imagine this happening frequently, maybe daily, or more.
I think it's fair to say it's a tough job. That's not condoning the powertrips, but at the same time, one needs to understand the circumstances those people work under. In civil society some of it would be considered sexual harassment and intimidation and direct threats.
All I'm saying is that public servants of all kinds face daily indignities. They may deserve some of it, other times it's people being jerks --but pubic servants don't face one or two antagonistic people a week, they can face many, depending on their post. And the point is no one should have face a daily dose of expletives directed at them. They face that, but they should not. Now granted, we have a right to express ourselves. My point is in any other job, this behavior would become unwelcome and would have consequences on the offender in the form of up to civil or criminal charges (sexual harassment, for example).
This work hazard is a bit unique to public servants and it's constant and that will take a toll on the affected's psyche, like if or not. Just because they get paid with public funds does not make them magically immune to human weaknesses.
They understood people cracked and just would disappear never coming back to work. There were days of spending three hours on a phone with someone that clearly did not understand where the start menu was despite having been explained it many times over those three hours.
Verbal abuse does hurt and it gets to people after a while. Being in a position at the end of that requires a very tough resolute personality. I thought I was the best at being strong, but in the end I cracked refusing to get out of bed for several days.
This is a tremendous privilege; it cannot come for free. It comes at the price of being open to any and all forms of criticisms (public and private) from other citizens, whether this criticism is in the form of a polite letter or a middle finger.
You could try to legislate that only "constructive criticisms" are to be tolerated, but that's a very slippery slope towards a police state. The cost of allowing citizens to call officers "assholes" is one that we absolutely want to take on.
hmmm.. do they? we are talking about law enforcement, which aside from being a public service is also _THE_ authority figure. The right to talk shit to authority is very important to me.
Something I don't understand is how we tolerate the blue code of silence. If a police officer lies in a court of law to protect a fellow officer, they should get at a minimum the same sentence as the fellow officer in question.
Still, it's not fair and I certainly would not work as public employee dealing with people who unload their problems on the face of the state.
-----
The complaint against Chaplinsky stated that he shouted: "You are a God-damned racketeer" and "a damned Fascist". Chaplinsky admitted that he said the words charged in the complaint, with the exception of the name of the deity...
Writing the decision for the Court, Justice Frank Murphy advanced a “two-tier theory” of the First Amendment. Certain “well-defined and narrowly limited” categories of speech fall outside the bounds of constitutional protection. Thus, “the lewd and obscene, the profane, the slanderous,” and (in this case) insulting or “fighting” words neither contributed to the expression of ideas nor possessed any “social value” in the search for truth.
Basically the fighting words doctrine from Chaplinsky has been steadily narrowed over the years.
Obviously, as a society we should demand that police officers uphold extremely high standards of conduct, given their power and position, and this certainly includes being called a fucking stupid asshole pig (or whatever) without responding violently/illegally.
It's not a crime to insult a cop, and if pepper spray and handcuffs are used in absence of a crime, there should be negative consequences for the police officer and his department.
More info an the Greene case: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/310/...
Crime could possibly get worse with the consequences of this recent anti-police sentiment which isn't really fact driven but an availability bias drummed up by the news, social media, etc.
By injecting excessive bureaucratic checks in the manner in which police keep the peace, we're putting a hurdle in front of their ability to provide it.
I just want to point out that this is an overwhelmingly class-based statement. If you are materially comfortable, especially if you're white, you would likely never have the slightest reason to curse at the police. If you are constantly seeing friends harassed and detained without cause, shot and killed, or experiencing it yourself (as at least a few of the folks in this article seemed to experience it), you might think a little differently. It's easy to make the fallacious argument that "anyone mixed up with the police was up to do good in the first place" when you live in a relatively affluent area, when you are not perceived as a "dangerous minority", etc.
And about the cursing, sometimes when people are being abused by bullies who are supposed to protect them they get angry and mouth off; they are human. It's obviously not a measured logical decision, it's a natural response to someone abusing their power, being a jerk, or even just doing their job when it happens to cause problems for you. Cops aren't gods who get to beat you up and lock you in a cage because you don't act like an obedient servant. Is it smart? No. But it's fully understandable, emotional, and human.