SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Fnord666
Law enforcement officers tend to frown on citizens interfering with their revenue generation. This has led to a number of First Amendment lawsuits from people arrested for warning others about [check notes] the existence of police officers in the vicinity.
One citizen was told as much when he was arrested for holding up a sign reading "Cops Ahead." One cop kept on script, referring to the man's actions as "interfering with an investigation." It wasn't an investigation. It was a distracted driving sting. The cop actually hauling him to the station was more to the point, telling the man he was arresting him for "interfering with our livelihood." First Amendment violation or felony interference with a business model? Why not both?
A lawsuit was filed in 2018 seeking a declaration that honking a car's horn is protected expression. And, all the way back in 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed over citations and arrests for flashing headlights to warn drivers of unseen officers.
A federal judge has decided -- albeit not very firmly -- that at least one of these actions is protected by the First Amendment. Wisconsin Magistrate Judge Stephen Crocker says flashing your headlights to warn drivers of speed traps is expressive speech -- something cops would be better off not trying to punish. (via Volokh Conspiracy)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Tuesday May 07 2019, @09:27PM (7 children)
Dear police:
Generating revenue is not the point.
Increasing safety is the point.
If a driver flashes their lights and gets other people to slow down, then safety has just been increased -- without using up court time, and with no additional effort on the part of officers.
The entire reason taxpayers pay for police departments is for . . . ta da . . . public safety!
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by FatPhil on Tuesday May 07 2019, @09:39PM (4 children)
It would be fun to find someone who insists that the cops-ahead sign is obviously illegal, and do a binary chop between that and the well-established idea of a fixed "please drive safely" sign in order to find the point at which I offer two all-but-indistinguishable apart from synonym-based nuance, and that someone's head implodes.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday May 07 2019, @09:44PM (3 children)
There is one additional benefit.
Officers merely have to be there. They do not have to be distracted from their donuts.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday May 07 2019, @09:47PM (2 children)
G/f has just mentioned CB - it's always been legal to announce radar wolves hiding behind hedges, hasn't it?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 4, Interesting) by NewNic on Tuesday May 07 2019, @11:23PM
Cardboard cutout policemen are quite effective. One out of many examples:
https://www.npr.org/2013/08/07/209751426/the-last-word-in-business [npr.org]
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 5, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday May 08 2019, @02:42AM
As NewNic points out, it works. A town in Ohio used to use it. The police car was on the corner about half of the time, it seemed. I guess about 80% or more of the time, the dummy was in the driver's seat. Now and then, there would be real cop at the wheel. But, you couldn't tell until you were pretty close, so if the real cop were there, he already had your speed. A department could have thirty cars, and ten officers, and still spread themselves out pretty effectively if they use the idea.
Of course, calling for backup might be confusing. Especially if one of the dummies responded!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Tuesday May 07 2019, @11:54PM
Treat the disease, not the symptoms.
The moment you levy fines, you're putting money in a government bucket.
The moment you put money in a government bucket, the more government wants to allocate that money elsewhere
The moment government gets used to that allocation, it acts like it will always have it.
The moment they think they should always have it, the more government budgets accordingly.
The moment that happens, that entire reason for levying the fines is well beyond the point.
Fines are unjustly and unduly injurious to the poor, used like weapons against the middle class, and wholly ineffectual against the rich. Since it boils down to money you might pay, it isn't exactly stopping people from doing it.
What stops somebody from speeding is most likely two things. Speed bumps and 12 hours of community service. That last one will be very effective at getting people to increase their levels of road safety. For the rich? 12 hours of community service must be excruciating when their time is worth so much /sarc.
If you want to take the current situation to a crescendo of anti-American totalitarian bullshit, just look at civil asset forfeiture law. It's not enough they take a little bit like a mosquito, they take nearly everything you have.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday May 08 2019, @02:11AM
Sylvia Stayton scored some minor fame for disrupting a parking meter racket. She was a nice old lady who was trying to help people who were using metered parking spots. She put change in meters that were about to expire or were already expired. Actually stayed just ahead of a cop who was trying to issue tickets, and he arrested her.
Not that there isn't lots of other evidence, but I found that incident one of the most nakedly revealing of the real intentions and attitudes of local government.