Wynder
State Researcher
imported post
So, I'm still really hung up on being able to defend against OC'ing not being Disorderly Conduct even though WE know it's not -- this is a defense scenario I've come up with and I'd like any critique on the premise...
The Fourteenth Amendment provides equal protect under the law for all people. So, for instance, if you're on public property and an officer orders you off of that property, this is not a lawful order since he isn't ordering everyone off of that property, e.g. the law isn't being applied equally since you're being singled out and are commanded to do something other than what the law provides for.
I was thinking about how this could be applied to Disorderly Conduct.
We walk down the street openly carrying a sidearm. Who else does this?
Law enforcement.
Why aren't they charging themselves with Disorderly Conduct? (Hear me out....)
The reactionary people might say, "Because they're a police officer." I say, "So, what?" The more thoughtful people might say, "Because they're a police officer discharging their duties as law enforcement." Which is a bit of a better answer; however, in almost every Disorderly Conduct statute there's no officer exception written into the law as there is, for example, for the carrying of a concealed weapon by an officer during the course of their duties.
This brings me to ask the question, if they're not arresting themselves for simply walking down the street while openly carrying a handgun, is this not a violation of your Fourteenth Amendment right to have the law equally applied to you? Unless the officer is specifically exempted, why is the law applied differently simply because of a job title?
Thoughts? Gaping holes in my logic?
So, I'm still really hung up on being able to defend against OC'ing not being Disorderly Conduct even though WE know it's not -- this is a defense scenario I've come up with and I'd like any critique on the premise...
The Fourteenth Amendment provides equal protect under the law for all people. So, for instance, if you're on public property and an officer orders you off of that property, this is not a lawful order since he isn't ordering everyone off of that property, e.g. the law isn't being applied equally since you're being singled out and are commanded to do something other than what the law provides for.
I was thinking about how this could be applied to Disorderly Conduct.
We walk down the street openly carrying a sidearm. Who else does this?
Law enforcement.
Why aren't they charging themselves with Disorderly Conduct? (Hear me out....)
The reactionary people might say, "Because they're a police officer." I say, "So, what?" The more thoughtful people might say, "Because they're a police officer discharging their duties as law enforcement." Which is a bit of a better answer; however, in almost every Disorderly Conduct statute there's no officer exception written into the law as there is, for example, for the carrying of a concealed weapon by an officer during the course of their duties.
This brings me to ask the question, if they're not arresting themselves for simply walking down the street while openly carrying a handgun, is this not a violation of your Fourteenth Amendment right to have the law equally applied to you? Unless the officer is specifically exempted, why is the law applied differently simply because of a job title?
Thoughts? Gaping holes in my logic?