At some point the people have to stand up and go after those cops for "contempt of citizen." A few prosecutions would do the trick. Or, lots of noisy protests.
I couldn't agree more Citizen! If there is a law, Law Enforcement wil find a way to abuse it.
We're both old enough to remember penny loafers. Everyone would stick a penny in so you couldn't be arrested for vagrancy. Then the loitering laws, the separate washrooms between the races (Which was still on Virginia's Books in the mid 80's).
I think Skidmark's case made enough noise to stop the Locals from charging under the brandishing statute so now they're using Assault by Intimidation.
Ironically if he had used his middle finger as opposed to making a gun sign, he probably would have been arrested for soliciting for prostitution.
Penny Loafers have a slot on the front of the shoe where pennies were inserted. One penny on each shoe so you always had two cents and couldn't be charged as a vagrant.I guess I'm too young to understand this one... vagrancy is the crime of not having any money?
Penny Loafers have a slot on the front of the shoe where pennies were inserted. One penny on each shoe so you always had two cents and couldn't be charged as a vagrant.
View attachment 8366
View attachment 8366
I guess I'm too young to understand this one... vagrancy is the crime of not having any money?
Yorkshire man faces an assault charge after a deputy said he made a gun gesture at him on April 6.
A Culpeper County Sheriff’s Office deputy was traveling on Ira Hoffman Road at 7 p.m. While at a stoplight at Rixeyville Road, the deputy saw the driver of a Nissan Altima behind him point his hand toward the patrol vehicle, Culpeper County Sheriff’s office spokeswoman Corey Byers said.
Two thoughts...Massad Ayoob uses this gesture to demonstrate a response.
If the deputy truly felt threatened, one has to ask why he did not respond with a physical defensive reaction - drawing his handgun to protect himself from the serious danger to his person.
On the video... no provision for the states where the driver is legally carrying without a permit.
On the finger pointing... yes, it would make for a very interesting line of questions by the "pointERS" defense attorney:
"Officer Pansee, when the defendant pointed his finger at you, did you draw your firearm?"
What I want to know is, how are they going to prove that the cop was intimidated? What was it he was going to do, and felt restrained from doing, because of that gesture?
If pointing a finger means you are shooting at the person, flipping them the bird will get you arrested for sexual assault as you are screwing them without their consent. If it is male on male or female on female, there are probably some other charges here in the common wealth. This is getting rediculous.
While targets of the gesture may find it impolite, insulting, offensive, vulgar, rude, or crude, the Supreme Court in Houston v. Hill eloquently stated that “the First Amendment recognizes, wisely we think, that a certain amount of expressive disorder not only is inevitable in a society committed to individual freedom, but must itself be protected if that freedom would survive.
”529 In other words, even if “[t]hese days, ‘the bird’ is flying “[t]he freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state”); Rutzick, supra note 236, at 10 (“To close the door on the most vigorous political protest would seem to do far more harm in the long run
than the likelihood in the short run of violent reactive conduct [by a public authority figure] or harm to the ‘sensibilities.’”). 527 Authority figures theoretically are less likely to be provoked to a violent reaction or to suffer harmed sensibilities than private citizens. See Hill, 482 U.S. at 453, 461 (striking down city ordinance that proscribed “interrupt[ing] a police officer in the performance of his or her duties”);
see also Webster v. City of New York, 333 F.
Supp. 2d 184, 189-92, 201-02 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (holding that partygoers’ comments toward police constituted protected criticism of officers’ actions where one “hysterical” partygoer was “screaming [her] head off,” and several of her companions loudly questioned whether police had authority to make any arrests during hostile encounter between police and citizens). Based on the nature of their work, authority figures — especially police officers — are expected to tolerate some potentially offensive speech activity.
See Lewis v. New Orleans, 408 U.S. 913, 913 (1972)
(Powell, J., concurring) (suggesting that fighting words exception to First Amendment may apply differently when words are addressed to police officer rather than to ordinary citizen, because officers are “trained to exercise a higher degree of restraint”); see also Rutzick, supra note 236, at 10 (“Whatever is assumed about the reaction of the average individual to offensive words, police are employed to keep the peace rather than breach it and are assumed to be trained to remain calm in the face of citizen anger . . . .”).
528 See Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 283 (holding that states may impose liability for libelous speech in limited circumstances); supra Part II.A (arguing that the middle finger gesture, when used alone, does not constitute fighting words); supra Part II.B (arguing that the middle finger gesture does not fall within scope of legal definition of obscenity).
529 Hill, 482 U.S. at 472.