

The Law on Cursing at Cops - danso
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/06/26/you-re-really-being-an-asshole-officer

======
Karunamon
Not to be a downer, but the practical effect of this ruling is nil. You curse
out a cop, he'll just ruin your day and the taxpayers will foot the bill even
if you successfully complain.

The cop got to flaunt his ego and show up the uppity citizen who backtalked
him. He still won, even if he "lost" in the end.

~~~
meric
Being offended at a flipped bird loses the citizen's respect, and increases
citizen's contempt for officers. Even as his ego won, trust in the police is
diminished. Imagine a police acting out and making an arrest due to anger, as
opposed to a police that winks and says, "Have a nice day to you too.". Which
officer would you respect more?

[http://www.quora.com/What-are-common-shit-tests](http://www.quora.com/What-
are-common-shit-tests)

~~~
XorNot
It doesn't matter. There is no individual benefit to doing this. It is a
stupid idea to go through life presuming you can do, and it's to an extent, a
violation of the social contract: we notionally let people do all sorts of
things on the assumption that they will generally avoid doing them but that
human nature is a finicky beast.

You want good and fair outcomes from the police force? Then be respectful, but
also support a justice system which won't screw someone over for just having a
bad moment.

~~~
meric
If the police force wants to be respected, then it must act in a way worthy of
respect. Showing respect where none deserved is like painting the brown leaves
of a dying tree green to make yourself appreciate it. Respect stems from
behaviour like fruit springing from a tree. Neglect the tree, lose the fruit.
Act foolishly, lose respect.

The US police has lost my respect, because there are so many instances of
police getting offended at flipped birds - none of which I'm responsible.

~~~
na85
What you seem to be missing or perhaps just not acknowledging is that the
police _don 't care_. They'll get paid whether you respect them or not.

~~~
dragonwriter
If enough voters don't respect them, that stops being true. Police get the
pay, benefits, etc., that they do as outputs of as political process that
rests on those decisions not resulting in political costs to the politicians
making them.

------
deckar01
I'm ready for a state to require verification of a crime before a person is
detained. Put the person into the police car, connect to a video conference
with a review board, review the footage of the police officer's FPV cam, and
let the person go if no crime was committed.

Having the power to waste someone's time is too much power.

~~~
qopp
In the big picture an arrest and the subsequent legal proceeding isn't a big
deal in someone's life if they are exonerated.

We shouldn't short-cut the legal process with a quick, possibly faulty
process.

~~~
prutschman
> isn't a big deal in someone's life if they are exonerated

It is if they lose their job because they're in jail. It is if they don't have
anyone else to look after their kid while they're in jail. It is if they can't
afford court fees.

------
tallerholler
I was arrested for "resisting arrest" after questioning two young punk cops
that dragged my younger sister backwards from her bedroom during a house party
at her house in college. I continually asked on what grounds they were
arresting me and was never given an answer other than that I was arrested for
resisting arrest. It was total bullshit but the whole point is that the cops
can do whatever they want to you, like it or not.

PS once they put me in the cop car and I knew they were seriously going to
take me to jail, the cop in the car said "I bet you hate it when men grope
your sister..." as his partner was frisking her outside the car... Real
quality humans.

~~~
MichaelApproved
Depending on where this took place, "resisting arrest" can mean obstructing.
You can be charged with it if you're interfering with an officer. I'm not
saying it's just, I'm just explaining that the name of the charge isn't
necessarily descriptive of the underlying statute.

[http://www.shouselaw.com/resisting-
arrest.html](http://www.shouselaw.com/resisting-arrest.html)

~~~
tallerholler
definitely.. and that's where the cops have true power. anything show of
defiance or questioning can be construed as obstructing or interfering no
problem...

------
ende
We need a police force for the police force. They can't arrest citizens, only
police officers, and they are completely independent of the primary power
structure. They answer only to a permanent rotating grand jury. If a cop is
accused of abusing their authority, it's not their precint captain or internal
affairs that they will answer to. They'll be arrested themselves and brought
before brought before the grand jury with plenty of ACLU advisors on hand.

~~~
anon4
You mean something like a Court Martial? I agree.

------
mc32
I'm of several minds on this.

One, yes crude language is protected speech.

On the other hand people who deal with lots of grief hourly deserve some kind
of protection from daily verbal abuse.

On the other hand, some of the abuse is likely attributable to "arrogance" on
the public servant. So perhaps these people should receive training and become
fireable, or at least reassigned if if becomes chronic. But being public
employees and in a labor union, that's not going to happen.

Still, I understand its a tall order to ask people to put up with awful abuse
day after day. Imagine you are a woman and the majority of people you process
through are unenthusiastic males. You are bound to get fed up.

~~~
betenoire
> On the other hand people who deal with lots of grief hourly deserve some
> kind of protection from daily verbal abuse.

hmmm.. do they? we are talking about law enforcement, which aside from being a
public service is also _THE_ authority figure. The right to talk shit to
authority is very important to me.

~~~
derefr
It seems to me that they deserve protection from abuse the same way disaster-
cleanup people deserve protection from biohazards and radiation: by limiting
their total lifetime exposure. If being a police officer was, say, a five-
year-limit tour-of-duty, which wouldn't be followed by _retirement_ but rather
by _sponsored retraining_ (as for drafted soldiers after a war), I think we'd
see a lot more people willing to become police. It'd be like joining the
domestic peace corps!

~~~
tempestn
That's an interesting idea. I would think limited 'tours of duty' might help
with corruption as well.

~~~
minot
We'd need a nationwide agreement of some sort to not employ people who have
already worked their quota of five years in the police force. Other than that,
I would absolutely agree with the idea.

Something I don't understand is how we tolerate the blue code of silence. If a
police officer lies in a court of law to protect a fellow officer, they should
get at a minimum the same sentence as the fellow officer in question.

------
tptacek
Can anyone find a case in which epithets directed at a cop were the basis of a
criminal charge that was (a) contested and (b) upheld? Every single case in
this page resulted in exoneration.

~~~
qopp
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

~~~
ghaff
It's interesting that this (unanimous) Supreme Court decision seems to take a
more restrictive line on permissible speech than the examples provided in the
article. I'm not familiar, however, with intervening case law.

\-----

The complaint against Chaplinsky stated that he shouted: "You are a God-damned
racketeer" and "a damned Fascist". Chaplinsky admitted that he said the words
charged in the complaint, with the exception of the name of the deity...

Writing the decision for the Court, Justice Frank Murphy advanced a “two-tier
theory” of the First Amendment. Certain “well-defined and narrowly limited”
categories of speech fall outside the bounds of constitutional protection.
Thus, “the lewd and obscene, the profane, the slanderous,” and (in this case)
insulting or “fighting” words neither contributed to the expression of ideas
nor possessed any “social value” in the search for truth.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire)

~~~
desdiv
See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words#Post-
Chaplinsky](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words#Post-Chaplinsky)

Basically the fighting words doctrine from Chaplinsky has been steadily
narrowed over the years.

------
veidr
Sorta interesting article, but I wish it gave more details on the outcomes.

Obviously, as a society we should demand that police officers uphold extremely
high standards of conduct, given their power and position, and this certainly
includes being called a fucking stupid asshole pig (or whatever) without
responding violently/illegally.

It's not a crime to insult a cop, and if pepper spray and handcuffs are used
in absence of a crime, there should be negative consequences for the police
officer and his department.

More info an the Greene case: [http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-
courts/F3/310/...](http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-
courts/F3/310/889/495675/)

------
barlescabbage
Folks are getting really carried away with this type of thing. If you curse
out a cop, you're probably up to no good and you will be harassed or detained.
If not then you're an idiot. Why curse out a cop? Why?

Crime could possibly get worse with the consequences of this recent anti-
police sentiment which isn't really fact driven but an availability bias
drummed up by the news, social media, etc.

By injecting excessive bureaucratic checks in the manner in which police keep
the peace, we're putting a hurdle in front of their ability to provide it.

~~~
wfo
The anti-police sentiment is certainly fact-based. The apologists claiming
"it's really not that bad" because they desperately wish it to not be that bad
aren't really fact-driven, they are illusory-comfort-from-a-place-of-privilege
driven. Social media and the news just make it possible for us to hear the
facts; normally they would never surface because the police lie to cover each
other.

And about the cursing, sometimes when people are being abused by bullies who
are supposed to protect them they get angry and mouth off; they are human.
It's obviously not a measured logical decision, it's a natural response to
someone abusing their power, being a jerk, or even just doing their job when
it happens to cause problems for you. Cops aren't gods who get to beat you up
and lock you in a cage because you don't act like an obedient servant. Is it
smart? No. But it's fully understandable, emotional, and human.

~~~
Retra
There's a lot of "argument from ignorance" style "if it doesn't happen to me,
it doesn't happen at all" thinking when it comes to understanding disparate
communities and their perceptions.

