Supreme Court rules an officer’s misunderstanding of a law is protected

[JamesCanby]

How so? State your case.

A subordinate has a duty to not obey a unlawful order. Doing that with a cop could get you jacked-up right quick and in a hurry.

What he said ^^^, plus an enlisted member of the military and junior officers have sworn an oath to obey the orders of their superior officers. Citizens have not. The whole comment comparing citizens to military members was specious to begin with.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

A subordinate has a duty to not obey a unlawful order. Doing that with a cop could get you jacked-up right quick and in a hurry.

So.... lemme get this straight; Officer Friendly gives me a command to unload his groceries from his car, or to rob a bank, or to pick up trash along the road and if I refuse I'm gonna be "jacked up right quick and in a hurry"?
There is no requirement to obey an unlawful order made by law enforcement either.


If anything Officer Friendly has Less authority than a military officer, commissioned, warranted, or non-commissioned. If Sergeant Bilco says 'Police up that cigarette butt' it doesn't matter worth a damn if you smoke or not. If Officer Friendly says the same thing I'll tell him to go pound sand.

 

[OC for ME]

So.... lemme get this straight; Officer Friendly gives me a command to unload his groceries from his car, or to rob a bank, or to pick up trash along the road and if I refuse I'm gonna be "jacked up right quick and in a hurry"?
There is no requirement to obey an unlawful order made by law enforcement either.


If anything Officer Friendly has Less authority than a military officer, commissioned, warranted, or non-commissioned. If Sergeant Bilco says 'Police up that cigarette butt' it doesn't matter worth a damn if you smoke or not. If Officer Friendly says the same thing I'll tell him to go pound sand.

Resorting to hyperbole does not strengthen your contention.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Resorting to hyperbole does not strengthen your contention.

Nor does your stating a falsehood as though it were fact.

Now, do you want to discuss this as adults, or not?

A subordinate has a duty to not obey a unlawful order. Doing that with a cop could get you jacked-up right quick and in a hurry.

If you want to eliminate any supposed hyperbole fine, I'll restate...
In the military a service member must follow any order that is not illegal or outside of his/her duties.
An order to pick up trash is legal,
an order to come in on one's day off is legal,
an order to dress a certain way is legal,
an order to unload food from a truck is legal, although an order to unload groceries from a superior's personal car is not.

If an officer of the law were to give the same orders in the same circumstances one would face no consequences for telling him to 'go pound sand'. I wonder it that may be because I'm not Officer Friendly's subordinate?

 

[OC for ME]

1.

If you believe it is a request ignore the cop and keep on keeping on, you have no legal obligation to recognize the cop's request, let alone engage the cop at all.

2.

A subordinate has a duty to not obey a unlawful order. Doing that with a cop could get you jacked-up right quick and in a hurry.

Nor does your stating a falsehood as though it were fact.

Now, do you want to discuss this as adults, or not?

If you want to eliminate any supposed hyperbole fine, I'll restate...
In the military a service member must follow any order that is not illegal or outside of his/her duties.
An order to pick up trash is legal,
an order to come in on one's day off is legal,
an order to dress a certain way is legal,
an order to unload food from a truck is legal, although an order to unload groceries from a superior's personal car is not.

If an officer of the law were to give the same orders in the same circumstances one would face no consequences for telling him to 'go pound sand'. I wonder it that may be because I'm not Officer Friendly's subordinate?

Backhanded insult noted.

You do not believe that "You there, come here I want to talk to you." is a command. OK, see number one. The comparison between a soldier and a civilian is a false comparison, see number two.

A cop can command you to do X and we will not know if it was lawful until we challenge it via the courts. A soldier is expected to know a lawful order, or unlawful order, when he hears one. Citizens are not so burdened...nor or cops burdened to assist us in our understanding which is which. Especially so, now, after the opinion provided in the OP.

Again, see number one and act as you see fit if a cop were to verbalize "You there, come here I want to talk to you."

 

[77zach]

Ignorance of the law is now and excuse, for cops.

But not for mundanes

http://ericpetersautos.com/2015/01/05/ignorance-law-now-excuse-cops/

I like this libertarian writer. He often has abundant doses of common sense.

 

[OC for ME]

NC Statute - § 20-129. Required lighting equipment of vehicles.

(d) Rear Lamps. – Every motor vehicle, and every trailer or semitrailer attached to a motor vehicle and every vehicle which is being drawn at the end of a combination of vehicles, shall have all originally equipped rear lamps or the equivalent in good working order, which lamps shall exhibit a red light plainly visible under normal atmospheric conditions from a distance of 500 feet to the rear of such vehicle.

Not everything is as it appears...or is reported. The cop did not make a mistake. This does not equal SCOTUS being right. Eight of the nine "justices" tossed our 4A into the ash bin of history.

 

[Maverick9]

So they can psychologically torture you and do illegal things and claim it was just 'protected harassment' and oopsie, didn't know torture was illegal, now?

 

[OC for ME]

So they can psychologically torture you and do illegal things and claim it was just 'protected harassment' and oopsie, didn't know torture was illegal, now?

Bingo!!

 

[Lafayette]

So does this mean that us wretched peons will be able to use ignorance of the law and good faith in our actions as a defense in court or is this strictly reserved for police?

SMH.... Blue is the new White....

 

[Thundar]

Anyone who believes that the cops learn from their mistakes is viewing LE from behind rose colored glasses.

Oh, no cops do often learn from their mistakes. They learn how to make their illegal actions "reasonable".

 

[sudden valley gunner]

So does this mean that us wretched peons will be able to use ignorance of the law and good faith in our actions as a defense in court or is this strictly reserved for police?

SMH.... Blue is the new White....

Yep...and as Russel Means said "Americans are the new Indians".