Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
(View past Libertarian pings here)
Posted on 08/12/2009 6:30:17 AM PDT by JohnPierce
One of the greatest threats to the free exercise of civil rights is the promulgation of catch-all offenses such as "disorderly conduct." With no clear definition of what constitutes behavior that is disorderly, many in law enforcement use such laws as a way to control and punish citizens for otherwise legal and constitutionally protected behavior.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
The Madison police chief needs to be fired immediately for wanton abuse of police powers.
ANY Madison police officer who followed the chief’s directive nedds also to be fired.
The Nuremburg defense has been rejected by the United States in the past and it should be rejected here.
So who watches the watchers? What does such a rogue Chief have to fear (or the Officers who enact his dictates) for imposing a denial of rights upon a population - and at gunpoint, no less?
Because it seems that's what's going on here.
The best solution to an issue of local or state authority denying or “chilling” the rights of a citizen under “color of law” is a federal civil rights action under U.S.C. § 1983.
However, that was one of my points. Those who cannot afford the thousands of dollars it takes to mount such a case with a good attorney (even with fee-shifting, cases need to be initially funded and there is never a guarantee as to the outcome) are often forced to accept these types of abuses.
That is why I made a point of highlighting the fact that the disregard of the AG’s opinion seems “Willful”. :)
The best solution to an issue of local or state authority denying or “chilling” the rights of a citizen under “color of law” is a federal civil rights action under U.S.C. § 1983.
However, that was one of my points. Those who cannot afford the thousands of dollars it takes to mount such a case with a good attorney (even with fee-shifting, cases need to be initially funded and there is never a guarantee as to the outcome) are often forced to accept these types of abuses.
That is why I made a point of highlighting the fact that the disregard of the AG’s opinion seems “Willful”. :)
I would contrast the two arrests. In the Madison case, the officer was clearly wrong. In the Cambridge case, Though, the officer told Gates to stop his behavior or he would be arrested. Gates did not stop his behavior, so he was arrested. If an officer tells you to stop or he will arrest you, and you don’t stop, the officer is going to arrest you. Otherwise, he diminishes his credibility.
Good article; thank you for posting it.
>The Madison police chief needs to be fired immediately for wanton abuse of police powers.
No, not just fired; that would be too light a punishment for so serious an offense. He should be prosecuted under these:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000241——000-.html
and
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000242——000-.html
>ANY Madison police officer who followed the chief’s directive needs also to be fired.
Again, those two laws could apply to any officer who DOES carry out those directives.
The problem with the Cambridge case though, is that the guy was arrested for “Being a jerk;” there is no law against being a jerk.
“Disorderly Conduct” was applied in the instance only because it is amply ill-defined... all other things being equal, why should someone be arrested for being upset that the police were [mistakenly] called on them?
BTTT
The similarities I found between the two were in the use of the “catch all” charge to punish to person for otherwise protected behavior.
Even though, by all reports, Professor Gates was yelling at the officer and being somewhat obnoxious, I like to think that one has the 1st Amendment right to loudly express themselves on their own property even when the public can hear that expression, so long as it is of a limited duration and in response to a specific set of circumstances.
I could be wrong, but I believe that in most cases, when a police officer tells a person to stop or he will be arrested, and the person does not stop, then the police officer will arrest the person.
Good point. I agree.
I’m not taking issue with that; I’m asking the question “Is it right?”/”Is it authorized?”
That's nothing, this happened yesterday in [supposedly] much less hoplophobic Arizona:
Teen in full military fatigue arrested while hiking
There wasn't even a (real) gun involved!
That's nothing, this happened yesterday in [supposedly] much less hoplophobic Arizona:
Teen in full military fatigue arrested while hiking
There wasn't even a (real) gun involved!
Taking initiative and doing some training on your own! *GASP*
There is a plus-side to all this though; it delegitimizes government authority regarding the 2nd Amendment. That is to say, if they keep jumping the gun over things like this, what would happen if a militia were to gather for some training?
{We reserve the right to return fire if fired upon.}
True, which is why it's so critical that there be severe repercussions any time a police officer or someone acting under color of authority makes an order which exceeds their authority. Now, I do see some difference between the two cases, Gates being somewhat of an ass and thus sharing partial blame for the outcome of the incident, but being "somewhat of an ass" shouldn't become a criminal matter. So, if one has the authority to arrest people for things, and they don't want to undermine their own credibility, they have the responsibility to refrain from saying "Stop being an ass or I'll arrest you".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.