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, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday May 08 2019, @01:25AM (4 children)
I've read too many stories of the cops turning a minor situation into a major one through their ham handed bullying and blundering, their trigger happiness, their penchant for expediency in trying to pin a crime on the nearest handy person, and worst of all, their various agendas that they put ahead of public safety. It's not solely about revenue. They also want to boost their numbers. Some get a kick out of being sadistic, or being on a power trip, some are closet racists who joined the force to abuse their powers to keep brown people down.
My brother had an experience in which a club called on police to keep things civil, and if necessary, escort a troublemaker from the premises. The police tried their damnedest to make a crime out of the situation. They pressured witnesses to tell them something they could use to arrest people. They wanted there to be crimes, wanted to do some arresting. They were very unhappy when people, including my brother, would not dish out dirt. They didn't care if it was true or not, they just wanted dirt on people so they could go have some fun performing some arrests.
(Score: 5, Informative) by ElizabethGreene on Wednesday May 08 2019, @03:05AM (3 children)
My distrust goes much farther back. For those of you not old enough to recall the 80s, some cod-flogging imbecile wanted to sell his little book so he started rumors about satanic ritual sexual abuse at day care centers. It was all rubbish, of course, but that did not stop a nationwide panic. My parents had sunk their life savings into starting a non-profit day care center for low income kids. They were victims of that panic, falsely accused, and subject to a very public and very long investigation that ultimately cost them everything.
That, by itself, could be considered reasonable. People were scared, and they wanted to protect the children. That happens. Where the system crossed the line was at the end. When all of the evidence was in (i.e. none), all of the interviews were done (children, parents, social workers, employees, vendors, etc) they realized they had absolutely nothing. Then they tried to threaten and cajole my mom (literally the most obstinate person on earth) to falsely say that one of the teachers was abusing the children. "Just give us Terry and we'll make all of this go away."
It wasn't about the truth or justice at that point. It was about having something to show for the work they'd expended.
... so I have some trust issues. The police, at best, are fallible do-gooders. At worse, they are tyrants with the power of life and death.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 08 2019, @03:06PM (1 child)
It's not reasonable at all, because it shows they turn their brains off when it comes to anything involving children. That mentality led directly to the abuses done by the authority figures, because they could do so without consequence. So, once again, a severe lack of critical thinking skills is the problem. Not to mention, a willingness to sacrifice liberties in the name of safety, which thoroughly debunks the notion that we live in 'the land of the free and the home of the brave'.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 08 2019, @05:42PM
yeah, assuming we have a state at all, there needs to be severe penalties for pigs and bureaucrats who knowingly misuse their power. stiff penalties for people who knowingly file false reports. too much of this shit just gets ignored or people get a slap on the wrist while people's lives get ruined.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday May 08 2019, @03:40PM
Sorry to hear that your parents were caught up in author and police machinations, with the original allegations every bit as ridiculous and unbelievable as the whole Pizzagate thing. Sounds like there's grounds for some lawsuits in there, but would need lots of proof, and video recorders were not ubiquitous in the 1980s.
A likely motive of the police is their jobs. It's the Prison Industrial Complex at work. If crime is down, then maybe the city doesn't need as many police officers. It's sad the shit people will do to keep a job. Yes, they will lie, frame, bear false witness, and other crap if they think their job depends on it. They're helped along that path of dishonesty and treachery by the bad examples of their superiors. Why should they be honest when their bosses aren't? It's asking too much of most people to take a stand on principle that will too likely eliminate their jobs. The management that pressures employees in that fashion is asking for trouble.
One of the most egregious historic cases of this sort was perpetrated by Harry Anslinger, head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. When Prohibition (of alcohol) was repealed in the US in 1933, he was faced with a crisis. His entire agency might be eliminated. So what did he do? Smeared marijuana, that's what. Did a u-turn from previous claims that cannabis was not harmful to literally claim that "reefer madness" turned people into axe murderers. People bought it, and so the War on Drugs gained new life that has lasted decades. They were all the more inclined to buy it because, ironically, Anslinger had a reputation for honesty. Also, the idea to smear marijuana did not originate with Anslinger, there were others who had motivations such as eliminating competition and selling newspapers, and so there was already a fire for Anslinger to fan. And fan it he did.