Racist Cop or Racist Prof?
07-31-2009, 12:07 PM
#76
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,808
Car Info: 2015 WRX
I was under the impression that the recording (referred to here: http://www.keyc.com/node/25413) was complete. My Mistake. It was later clarified that the released audio was police communication only.
"I'm up with a gentleman who says he resides here. He's uncooperative. Keep the cars coming."- Sgt. James Crowley
"I'm up with a gentleman who says he resides here. He's uncooperative. Keep the cars coming."- Sgt. James Crowley
Did that clarify a bit? i'm not trying to be a dick (i was born this way) but the basis for my conclusion will depend highly on the final version of the events of that night which is why i did not recite more specific rulings regarding verbal confrontations with police officers. I take issue with your assertion, that appears at least, to imply that vulgarity or "fighting words" directed at officers is protected speech... Which is not entirely correct as i have tried (poorly) to demonstrate.
At the time of Locricchio's arrest, it was clearly established that statutes criminalizing speech do not violate the First Amendment if they are narrowly drawn to penalize only speech "likely to provoke the average person to retaliation." See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 574 (1942) (applying this standard in a case involving speech directed at a police officer). Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent also had clearly established that the First Amendment protects verbal criticism, challenges, and profanity directed at police officers unless the speech constitutes "fighting words." See City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 455, 465-67 (1987) (striking down as overbroad city ordinance that prohibited "oppos[ing], molest[ing], abus[ing] or interrupt[ing] any policeman in the execution of his duty"); Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 415 U.S. 130, 132-34 (1974) (striking down as overbroad a city ordinance making it unlawful "wantonly to curse or revile or to use obscene or opprobious language toward or with reference to any member of the city police while in the actual performance of his duty"); Duran v. City of Douglas, 904 F.2d 1372, 1377-78 (9th Cir.1990) (police officer's stop of a car from which defendant was making obscene gestures and yelling profanities was unlawful; defendant's actions were protected by First Amendment).
07-31-2009, 12:34 PM
#77
plays well with others
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sac
Posts: 9,923
Car Info: your mother crazy
Originally Posted by saqwarrior
In short, I don't really know why you're arguing with me.
my statements are pertaining to how these precedents apply to the situation at hand [Gates]. If were you under the impression i was attempting to dispute the definitions of protected speech as determined in previous cases then I'm sorry for misleading you/being unclear.
07-31-2009, 12:40 PM
#78
plays well with others
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sac
Posts: 9,923
Car Info: your mother crazy
Originally Posted by me
I take issue with your assertion, that appears at least, to imply that vulgarity or "fighting words" directed at officers is protected speech.... Which is not entirely correct as i have tried (poorly) to demonstrate.
07-31-2009, 06:09 PM
#79
It is sad that this goes on record, and plenty of people get arrested for just mouthing off to officers.
Officers are supposed to ignore that nonsense? I mean aren't they trained to stay calm and not give a damn if someone tells them to shove it up their own ***? Officers should be able to take a lot of bullcrap when it comes to words, not just say "I'm arresting you because you're irate" ?
Officers are supposed to ignore that nonsense? I mean aren't they trained to stay calm and not give a damn if someone tells them to shove it up their own ***? Officers should be able to take a lot of bullcrap when it comes to words, not just say "I'm arresting you because you're irate" ?
08-02-2009, 02:38 AM
#80
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Nor Cal-- For Now
Posts: 380
Car Info: 05 PSM WRX
It is sad that this goes on record, and plenty of people get arrested for just mouthing off to officers.
Officers are supposed to ignore that nonsense? I mean aren't they trained to stay calm and not give a damn if someone tells them to shove it up their own ***? Officers should be able to take a lot of bullcrap when it comes to words, not just say "I'm arresting you because you're irate" ?
Officers are supposed to ignore that nonsense? I mean aren't they trained to stay calm and not give a damn if someone tells them to shove it up their own ***? Officers should be able to take a lot of bullcrap when it comes to words, not just say "I'm arresting you because you're irate" ?
08-07-2009, 02:54 PM
#81
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,808
Car Info: 2015 WRX
my statements are pertaining to how these precedents apply to the situation at hand [Gates]. If were you under the impression i was attempting to dispute the definitions of protected speech as determined in previous cases then I'm sorry for misleading you/being unclear.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
