The South Dakota Supreme Court on Monday heard arguments over whether yelling profanities at a passing police officer is protected speech under the U.S. Constitution.I admit mixed feelings on this. "Fighting words" do exist. Some verbal abuse a man just shouldn't have to take.
That said, my primary concern is making sure "Only Ones" aren't getting a free pass to do to citizens what they will not tolerate happening to them.
[Via Mama Liberty]
12 comments:
Government employees should be required to take any verbal abuse a citizen chooses to heap upon them. If they don't like it, they can quit and find honest labor.
"I shoulda knocked the f--- outta you." -- police officer to journalist after protest.
Or sometimes they just do it, with no provocation. I'd hope the language is reserved for cops in the act or known to have been abusive.
Like I say sometimes, someday it will be a bad idea to be wearing the same uniform as certain people. There might be mistakes of identity. Better to drive a garbage truck.
Fighting words DO exist? What would someone SAY that would make you lose your cool enough to get violent?
A threat would do it.
If you're saying you have the will to physicially resist someone but could not be provoked with words, Nick, I don't believe you.
I am reminded of that audio link you posted a while back where the cops were threatening the guy if he didn't sign a form consenting to a search. I seem to recall some not-so-nice language coming from the enforcers.
Nick, there are many things one can say to me that will cause him physical regret.
If you are intimating that no words can provoke you, I can only hope you are lying, or that I never need trust you.
The response simply has to be consistent with the threat. If words are used, regardless of which words, I don't see any of us shooting the idiot.
On the other hand, a physical response would certainly be legitimate in many cases... but none of us would be likely to take it to court either.
Actually, to work correctly "fighting words" should be an affirmative defense to a charge of assault. If I were to call our gentle host "a mouse-gun toting so-and-so who isn't man enough to even handle 9mm," either he doesn't do anything, in which case they weren't fighting words, or he (properly) puts my lights out, in which case they obviously WERE fighting words, but he shouldn't be held responsible since I'm the one who started the whole thing.
Of course, the State prefers to criminalize what it chooses, rather than what it should, so you have the whole mess the way it is.
The problem is, LawHobbit, truth is also relevant, and the fact of the matter is, I am "a mouse-gun toting so-and-so." And I expect to hear from no small number seeing this for the first time that my use of the word "clip" is "fighting words."
I think as long as nobody calls me a Denebian Slime Devil we oughtta be cool.
Nick, I haven't been in a knockdown dragout since I was a young man--over 30, more like almost 40 years ago--so I think I have a pretty good record for holding myself in check. I only hit someone first once, and that was because he said he was going to beat me up and I reckoned he could do it if I gave him the chance. So I didn't "lose my cool," I acted deliberately. One object is to make your opponent lose his cool. And I'm not saying I can't lose mine--no one can make that claim--but the fact is, I never have in a dangerous situation, and I've literally figured I was going to die probably four times or so in my life.
Offhand I won't come up with a hypothetical scenario to argue with you over because it would all depend on circumstances, but note that "fighting words" doesn't mean you need to be the one to initiate force--it simply means you need to be willing to fight, and willing to stand up and demand certain offenses cease immediately. I attribute the fact that I have been one reason why I haven't been compelled to escalate beyond posturing since I was a young man.
If you read this post through, you'll see my comments weren't about the cop's actions but about equality under the law. Whether the circumstances in this particular story rise to my standard of legitimate "fighting words" is not the issue.
That said, I'll give you one more example of "fighting words":
Surrender your firearms.
If you ever hear them, I recommend not losing your cool.
Funny David, but when I "lose my cool", I become very cold, calculating and dangerous. I make no move not dedicated to maximum effectiveness. Unfortunately, at that point, I also have no compunctions regarding "proportionate force".
Over the years, I have managed to put a time delay on my reactions to most non-physical confrontations for fear that I may overreact. However, there are circumstances in which that time delay can be and has been ignored. It never applies to physical confrontations. Simply because I never start a physical confrontation, with the exception you listed. I will not wait for a man who threatens me to act. I will take him at his word and respond accordingly.
As you so astutely pointed out though, there is something wrong with different rules for different segments of society.
A young man (at the time, not so young now) once shot the finger at a cop who cut him off in traffic. For a man in such a hurry the cop deciced he had time to stop and arrest the guy for assault. No shit! Chris, told him, (paraphrased) "I have no problem paying the fine or serving the time if you don't mind going to court and admitting to all your macho brothers just how sensitive you are, like a little girl." The cop threatened him and shot his mouth for awhile but ended up letting him go without charges or citations. Of course that was enough years ago that things were different than they are now. Cops had not yet reached "royal" status.
Now, it would not be considered sissy to cry and whine about such, if a cop, because they are "special" and any derogatory gestures or speech is regarded as an attack on "law and order" and their divinely granted superiority.
Perhaps they worry about such little things on a small department, but in the big cities this crap happens ALL THE TIME and yet arrests aren't made for First Amendment issues. Arrests (if any) are usually made for actual violations of law, such as Drunk in Public. There are usually more than enough sections of law to cover "bar scenarios" that you don't need to go making stuff up.
After carrying a badge for MANY years, if I arrested someone every time they called me a name, I'd never get the paperwork done so I could make arrests for actual crimes. IMHO, this case is stretching it, it shouldn't have happened the way it did, and the government shouldn't have wasted the resources to appeal it. In SoCal, this would have been laughed out of court - "you're wasting the court's time on THIS???"
Fighting words, PFFFFTH, if you're going to wear a badge, grow a thicker skin. Now if there's a legitimate threat involved or there's inciting the crowd to riot, that's different and you'd use different charges, more appropriate to what's happening, not simple profanities you hear on TV.
Wasn't there already a case like this that had gone through the SCOTUS? IIRC, LEOs must endure insults and profanities hurled at them.
Post a Comment