Gay man arrested for hating the police

[mawilson 2,133]

When did I ever say "cops shouldn't risk themselves?" I've certainly said that cops have a very dangerous job and are usually underpaid and often disliked.

Which is why you have to be a certain kind of bravado/machismo/testosterone driven individual

with an authoritarian mindset to want to be a cop in the first place.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Cops don't 'deserve' respect. Some of the shittiest human beings I know have gravitated to careers in law enforcement.

Agreed - respect has to be earned.

Exactly. Just putting on a uniform doesn't give you the automatic right to be respected. How you conduct yourself day in and day out while conducting police business will do that - or not depending on how good a cop you are.

Respect the fact that there out there putting there life on the line, thats what im getting at. It was uncalled for, for him to start singing "I hate cops" What did the cop do to lose this guys respect???

It is disrespectful...no doubt. But if you support the 1st Amendment, you accept that some free speech is disrespectful and ugly. Unless a cop is threatened verbally, they have no right to arrest someone for simply saying something disrespectful.

He didn't arrest the guy for disrespecting him, he charged him with disorderly conduct. Well within the law, a vague law yes but still within the law.

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

Reasonable, it aint.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Cops don't 'deserve' respect. Some of the shittiest human beings I know have gravitated to careers in law enforcement.

Agreed - respect has to be earned.

Exactly. Just putting on a uniform doesn't give you the automatic right to be respected. How you conduct yourself day in and day out while conducting police business will do that - or not depending on how good a cop you are.

Respect the fact that there out there putting there life on the line, thats what im getting at. It was uncalled for, for him to start singing "I hate cops" What did the cop do to lose this guys respect???

It is disrespectful...no doubt. But if you support the 1st Amendment, you accept that some free speech is disrespectful and ugly. Unless a cop is threatened verbally, they have no right to arrest someone for simply saying something disrespectful.

Steven's absolutely correct. I don't agree with shouting "I hate cops!" and I don't personally blame the police officer for arresting him. However, this idiot CAN legally say that.

You have the right to free speech, just not the right to be listened to.

Yup. So the arresting officer could've ignored him. Much easier to say than to do and on a personal level, I agree with the officer, but that doesn't do a whole lot for the legalities of the situation.

well according to you cops shouldn't risk themselves, better taze a poor deaf guy than risking 'getting attacked' with an umbrella

The keyword is unnecessary, they shouldnt have to put themselves at unnecessary risk. When having a reasonable option like tazing why put themselves at risk. Theres no need to use the "its a risky job" antics, your ignoring the point that is trying to be made. You did this same routine in the Gates thread.

[_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.

[mawilson 2,133]

The keyword is unnecessary, they shouldnt have to put themselves at unnecessary risk. When having a reasonable option like tazing why put themselves at risk. Theres no need to use the "its a risky job" antics, your ignoring the point that is trying to be made. You did this same routine in the Gates thread.

I'd love to taze a cop. Just a random cop that I find "disorderly."

These fukcers think they are above the law - they should get a taste of their own medicine once in a while.

[Ban Hammer 14,295]

The keyword is unnecessary, they shouldnt have to put themselves at unnecessary risk. When having a reasonable option like tazing why put themselves at risk. Theres no need to use the "its a risky job" antics, your ignoring the point that is trying to be made. You did this same routine in the Gates thread.

I'd love to taze a cop. Just a random cop that I find "disorderly."

These fukcers think they are above the law - they should get a taste of their own medicine once in a while.

given your desire to taze someone, maybe you should be a cop.

[_Simpson_ 250]

The keyword is unnecessary, they shouldnt have to put themselves at unnecessary risk. When having a reasonable option like tazing why put themselves at risk. Theres no need to use the "its a risky job" antics, your ignoring the point that is trying to be made. You did this same routine in the Gates thread.

I'd love to taze a cop. Just a random cop that I find "disorderly."

These fukcers think they are above the law - they should get a taste of their own medicine once in a while.

Why such a deep hatred for cops, do you care to share?

[mawilson 2,133]

The keyword is unnecessary, they shouldnt have to put themselves at unnecessary risk. When having a reasonable option like tazing why put themselves at risk. Theres no need to use the "its a risky job" antics, your ignoring the point that is trying to be made. You did this same routine in the Gates thread.

I'd love to taze a cop. Just a random cop that I find "disorderly."

These fukcers think they are above the law - they should get a taste of their own medicine once in a while.

Why such a deep hatred for cops, do you care to share?

Stories like this one.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

[_Simpson_ 250]

The keyword is unnecessary, they shouldnt have to put themselves at unnecessary risk. When having a reasonable option like tazing why put themselves at risk. Theres no need to use the "its a risky job" antics, your ignoring the point that is trying to be made. You did this same routine in the Gates thread.

I'd love to taze a cop. Just a random cop that I find "disorderly."

These fukcers think they are above the law - they should get a taste of their own medicine once in a while.

Why such a deep hatred for cops, do you care to share?

Stories like this one.

Well bad behavior attracts the media, so many good things going on in our communities by the law enforcement that will not get reported unfortunatly.

[_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.

Edited July 31, 2009 by looking_up

[aidan80 9]

D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier has ordered an internal investigation into a gay man's arrest for disorderly conduct after the man filed a complaint alleging that an officer detained and arrested him for expressing his dislike for police.

District resident Pepin Tuma, 33, an attorney in private practice, said the arrest took place at 17th and U streets, N.W., shortly after midnight July 26, seconds after a police officer overheard him telling two friends "jokingly" and in a loud voice, "I hate the police."

...

In an e-mail to Lanier, Tuma said that after repeating twice to his friends in a "sing-song" voice, "I hate the police," an officer "charged 40-50 feet towards us while yelling at me phrases like 'who do you think you are' and 'who do you think you're talking to.'"

"I said nothing at this time, except asking why I was being detained, whether I was being arrested, and my belief that it was not a crime to offer an opinion to my friends about the police," Tuma wrote in his e-mail to Lanier.

He said the officer, later identified as Second District Officer J. Culp, pushed him against a transformer box, placed him under arrest and handcuffed him without immediately informing him of the charge.

"As Officer Culp moved me toward a police cruiser, he told me to 'just shut up, faggot,'" Tuma told Lanier in his e-mail.

He said police took him to the Second District station at Connecticut and Idaho avenues, N.W., near the National Cathedral, where he was booked and released about four hours later. He said his release came after he agreed to pay a fine as part of a "post and forfeit" plea, which is an acknowledgement of possible guilt.

Tuma said he agreed to the post and forfeit plea after officers who processed his arrest told him he would be forced to remain in a holding cell before being presented before a magistrate in D.C. Superior Court had he pleaded not guilty to the charge.

He said he had a longstanding commitment that morning and did not want to miss it by having to appear in court. Tuma said he plans to exercise his right to withdraw the post and forfeit the plea at a later date and fully contest the charge in court.

http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelate...m?blog_id=26502

So when does this fella and the cop go to the white house?

[_Simpson_ 250]

oh and he probably was drunk too which gives the cop a very lawful reason but lets see what the cop has to say.

Edited July 31, 2009 by looking_up

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

[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.

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.

Of course, no one can simply believe one side of the story or the other simply because it makes the newspapers, but making the newspapers is a necessary part of the transparency process that leads to an effective and honest police service.