Gay man arrested for hating the police

[_Simpson_ 250]

That essentially means the cop could arrest you for more or less anything and decide its "disorderly".

Reasonable, it aint.

no not true, it has to be in public or in good view of the public.

Yes - they could arrest you in public for more or less anything and deem it falls under the umbrella of disorderly. Making an offhand comment shouldn't be reason enough to arrest someone.

He was singing, being loud and obnoxious. It went beyond a offhand comment IMO. I also like to mention we havent heard the cops side yet.

That's still a stretch for disorderly, based on the article. The alleged response (including not being read his rights) also goes way beyond what is appropriate.

He should of read him his rights and maybe he did.

[_Simpson_ 250]

What is at stake here is if cops should be believed simply because they are cops and 'arrestees' disbelieved simply because they have been arrested. Your position appears to be that no matter what, cops can do no wrong (unless somoene provides video proof otherwise) and anyone who is arrested deserived to be. The other position being held is that cops can and do sometimes abuse their position and make decisions that are wrong for example arresting people simply because they have a 'bad attitude' or tazering people who pose no significant threat. In other words, they do not believe a cop just because he is a cop.

and your position could easily be perceived as never giving the police the benefit of the doubt. The guy is singing I hate cops, yeah hardly a upstanding cititzen so in a case like this yes I will give the cop the benifit of the doubt. I dont believe a cop just because hes a cop, the situation plays into it. Another position which you didnt mention that many take on here on VJ is that police are pigs and never to be trusted.

My actual comment was that I believe that cops should be able to taze someone once they resist arrest. If someone is just bad mouthing you I would not justify tazing.

It seems to me that the second position is the more reasonable simply because of human nature - each of these stories needs to be aired and rigourously examined. If fault is found, those found to be at fault need to be punished. This must be done to preserve the integrity of the police service. To simply turn around and say you will always give the police the benefit of the doubt is utter foolishness and will lead to further degredation.

I have said 3 times already I believe that we first need to hear the other side of the story. My very first comment was that very thing and there soon after was plenty of people to jump on the "those stupid cops bandwagon"

Edited July 31, 2009 by looking_up

[Peikko 1,575]

What is at stake here is if cops should be believed simply because they are cops and 'arrestees' disbelieved simply because they have been arrested. Your position appears to be that no matter what, cops can do no wrong (unless somoene provides video proof otherwise) and anyone who is arrested deserived to be. The other position being held is that cops can and do sometimes abuse their position and make decisions that are wrong for example arresting people simply because they have a 'bad attitude' or tazering people who pose no significant threat. In other words, they do not believe a cop just because he is a cop.

and your position could easily be perceived as never giving the police the benefit of the doubt. The guy is singing I hate cops, yeah hardly a upstanding cititzen so in a case like this yes I will give the cop the benifit of the doubt. I dont believe a cop just because hes a cop, the situation plays into it. Another position which you didnt mention that many take on here on VJ is that police are pigs and never to be trusted.

My actual comment was that I believe that cops should be able to taze someone once they resist arrest. If someone is just bad mouthing you I would not justify tazing.

It seems to me that the second position is the more reasonable simply because of human nature - each of these stories needs to be aired and rigourously examined. If fault is found, those found to be at fault need to be punished. This must be done to preserve the integrity of the police service. To simply turn around and say you will always give the police the benefit of the doubt is utter foolishness and will lead to further degredation.

I have said 3 times already I believe that we first need to hear the other side of the story. My very first comment was that very thing and there soon after was plenty of people to jump on the "those stupid cops bandwagon"

What part of singing 'I hate cops' necessarily proves that someone is not an upstanding citizen? You are using your own preconceptions to render a judgment. Either free speech is afforded to everyone, or it is not. If it is afforded, then every citizen is entitled to their own opinion on cops, even if that opinion is one that you do not share. If that is the case then unless the citizen provided just cause that rendered him a threat in some way, being arrested for holding an opinion was simply wrong.

[_Simpson_ 250]

What part of singing 'I hate cops' necessarily proves that someone is not an upstanding citizen? You are using your own preconceptions to render a judgment. Either free speech is afforded to everyone, or it is not. If it is afforded, then every citizen is entitled to their own opinion on cops, even if that opinion is one that you do not share. If that is the case then unless the citizen provided just cause that rendered him a threat in some way, being arrested for holding an opinion was simply wrong.

No No No, that is just not how it works here. You cant yell whatever you want in a public place. It is what it is and we need to hear the rest of the story.

Also what about slander?

[Peikko 1,575]

Why can't you yell whatever you like in public places?

What about slander?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

You cant yell whatever you want in a public place.

You can't yell fire because you could start a stampede and people could get hurt.

You can't sing "i hate cops" because you could hurt their feelings and the little retards may lose what little impulse control they have and start shooting and people could get hurt.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What part of singing 'I hate cops' necessarily proves that someone is not an upstanding citizen? You are using your own preconceptions to render a judgment. Either free speech is afforded to everyone, or it is not. If it is afforded, then every citizen is entitled to their own opinion on cops, even if that opinion is one that you do not share. If that is the case then unless the citizen provided just cause that rendered him a threat in some way, being arrested for holding an opinion was simply wrong.

No No No, that is just not how it works here. You cant yell whatever you want in a public place. It is what it is and we need to hear the rest of the story.

Also what about slander?

The guy said some variant of "I hate cops", that's not equivalent to shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.

Slander is totally different - irrelevant to this case. Libel and slander cases are notoriously difficult to prosecute in this country due to the Constitution. The emphasis is also on the individual to prove that their reputation and career were quantitatively damaged by what was said about them.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The emphasis is also on the individual to prove that their reputation and career were quantitatively damaged by what was said about them.

And you can't "slander" people who follow an occupation as a group.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The emphasis is also on the individual to prove that their reputation and career were quantitatively damaged by what was said about them.

And you can't "slander" people who follow an occupation as a group.

Yeah otherwise - the courts would be full of lawsuits everytime someone says "politicians are corrupt"

[mawilson 2,133]

What part of singing 'I hate cops' necessarily proves that someone is not an upstanding citizen? You are using your own preconceptions to render a judgment. Either free speech is afforded to everyone, or it is not. If it is afforded, then every citizen is entitled to their own opinion on cops, even if that opinion is one that you do not share. If that is the case then unless the citizen provided just cause that rendered him a threat in some way, being arrested for holding an opinion was simply wrong.

No No No, that is just not how it works here. You cant yell whatever you want in a public place. It is what it is and we need to hear the rest of the story.

Also what about slander?

What about it? Slander is a statement that gives someone or something a negative image.

Saying "I hate ABC" does not give ABC a negative image - it's merely an expression of an opinion.

A statement must be provably false before it can be the subject of a libel suit.

Edited July 31, 2009 by mawilson

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The emphasis is also on the individual to prove that their reputation and career were quantitatively damaged by what was said about them.

And you can't "slander" people who follow an occupation as a group.

Yeah otherwise - the courts would be full of lawsuits everytime someone says "politicians are corrupt"

oh snap.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

or "democrats love terrorists".

[ScottThuy 140]

Now lets flip it around.. Do you think the cop would have arrested him if he said "MMMMMMMMMM I love me a man in uniform... oh yeah and a cop especially.. yum yum yum!!!! I love cops! I love cops! " I dont think the cop would have bent him over a transformer at that point as was the actual case....

[_Simpson_ 250]

Why can't you yell whatever you like in public places?

What about slander?

You said -

Either free speech is afforded to everyone, or it is not.

Its not, even free speech has its limitations. In a disorderly way in public its not excusable by law. The screaming fire is another example. Slander is another example.

What part of singing 'I hate cops' necessarily proves that someone is not an upstanding citizen? You are using your own preconceptions to render a judgment. Either free speech is afforded to everyone, or it is not. If it is afforded, then every citizen is entitled to their own opinion on cops, even if that opinion is one that you do not share. If that is the case then unless the citizen provided just cause that rendered him a threat in some way, being arrested for holding an opinion was simply wrong.

No No No, that is just not how it works here. You cant yell whatever you want in a public place. It is what it is and we need to hear the rest of the story.

Also what about slander?

What about it? Slander is a statement that gives someone or something a negative image.

Saying "I hate ABC" does not give ABC a negative image - it's merely an expression of an opinion.

A statement must be provably false before it can be the subject of a libel suit.

True but this was not my point my point was that free speech has its limitatations too. I was responding to MC saying -

Either free speech is afforded to everyone, or it is not.

[mawilson 2,133]

True but this was not my point my point was that free speech has its limitatations too. I was responding to MC saying -

But it *was* your point. You clearly don't understand the First Amendment very well.

Yes, even the First Amendment has its limits, but not to the extent you imagine. One of the tests

the Supreme Court uses in such incidents is that of "clear and present danger." Is there, from

someone's speech, a clear and present danger that there could be violence or tragedy?

If there is, then that can be restricted; otherwise - no.

Defamation is another example, but the Supreme Court ruled that opinions could not be

considered defamatory (see Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.).