Does calling a cop a NAZI equal lawful arrest?

reply to post by FortAnthem


Unfortunately, all laws and rights are given up when one is really really stupid and has no clue how to act in society...still.

CJ

reply to post by YourPopRock


MY bad, you just want them dead, you just dont want to be the one doing the deed then

The guy called the cop a Nazi, he shouted it, in my opinion, yes, he is disturbing the peace, and in my opinion the guy is a Muppet, he deserves to be arrested and charged. The cop was being friendly, he even waved! No need for the cameramans attitude.

reply to post by woogleuk


So in your opinion, anyone who has a beef with cops, verbally, should go to jail?

CJ

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by woogleuk

 

So in your opinion, anyone who has a beef with cops, verbally, should go to jail?

CJ

Yup. Jail time for a day at least for those with "anger management problems" to cool down and think things through. As per poster, it's a disturbance of peace, especially when disturbing the "peace of mind" of "peace keepers" who are nice enough to wave and be friendly.

reply to post by ColoradoJens


When the police officer hasn't done anything wrong, then hell yeah. How would you feel if somebody started hurling verbal abuse at you for no reason, when you are simply doing your job?

You look at all these videos of bad cops tazering and beating individuals for practically nothing and it paints a negative view of all police officers. Not all cops are bad. If the police weren't around we would have crime, murders and all sorts of bad stuff going on. They do not deserve some jackass shouting verbal insults at them from his garage when they haven't done anything to him but give him a friendly wave, if they had been beating or mistreating the woman in the car, then maybe a "oi, what are you doing, I have this as evidence on my camera" would have sufficed, not "oi, you Nazi SS wannabes", that is just plain damn insulting and rude...put yourself in the cops shoes.

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by ColoradoJens

 

When the police officer hasn't done anything wrong, then hell yeah. How would you feel if somebody started hurling verbal abuse at you for no reason, when you are simply doing your job?

You look at all these videos of bad cops tazering and beating individuals for practically nothing and it paints a negative view of all police officers. Not all cops are bad. If the police weren't around we would have crime, murders and all sorts of bad stuff going on. They do not deserve some jackass shouting verbal insults at them from his garage when they haven't done anything to him but give him a friendly wave, if they had been beating or mistreating the woman in the car, then maybe a "oi, what are you doing, I have this as evidence on my camera" would have sufficed, not "oi, you Nazi SS wannabes", that is just plain damn insulting and rude...put yourself in the cops shoes.

FYI - we still have crime, murderrs and all sorts of bad stuff going on WITH them around. When is the last time you heard of police solving a car theft, a mugging, a purse snatching? And now when is the last time you heard about the police assaulting someone, murdering someone or wrongfully arresting someone?

reply to post by YourPopRock


Everyday when I look in the crime / court section of the newspaper....they even have a name and shame section now where the worst crimes have the criminals faces splashed all over so we can have a good look at them.

Your argument is flawed in many ways, of course there is going to be murders and muggings, it's always going to happen when poverty, drugs and certain mental problems exist. Everybody is capable of committing crime, but for the most part people fear getting arrested and going to jail because there are police and laws.

Without those police and laws there would be nothing stopping any person from doing what they wanted to harm another person.

EDIT: Here is a picture I took a couple of hours ago (if you can view it, it's from my facebook profile) of a car that was burned out last night at the bottom of my road....within half an hour the police were on the scene and the offender tracked down and arrested. I stood and had a good friendly chat with one of the officers on the scene and we had a laugh trying to decide if it was a bored teenager, a cheesed off ex girlfriend, or an insurance job. (it was the bored teenager)

Stupid cops.

They dont like being called NAZIS, so in response they act even more like NAZIS.

Im more and more beginning to understand how the UK nickname 'The Filth' arose for the Police.

reply to post by woogleuk


They may or may not deserve to be called NAZIS in this case, we dont know. I personally think that, even if they didn't deserve it when he said it, they more than earned the name in their response to him. So yeah, they're. NAZIS. He called it right.

But the point is that, deserved or not, their response to hearing a name they dont like: using their power against him, coming onto his property when told not to, looking for ways to punish him (his grass) and trying to find a law to arrest him under shows that they dont really care about the law, nor were they acting lawfully, nor even like adults, but like abusive spoilt children, abusing their power and the law to satisfy their egos.

Freedom of speech means that sometimes cops are going to be called NAZIS by people on their own property and perhaps on the street. They should suck it up. They're just words, opinions.

Police are becoming the enemies of freedom, including freedom of speech.

Originally posted by kneverr

Originally posted by CodexSinaiticus

In the state where this occurred, there may be a statute relative to "hate speech".

If the hate speech is a misd or higher (Fel) which I'm sure it would be, door or no door, the cameraman is going to be packing pajamas.

US misdemeanor or felony hate speech law(s)?

Please post official links to these active US fed or state hate "speech" law(s), thank you.

Originally posted by chancemusky
You cant just call someone a nazi anymore than you can call someone a ni***r.

In America, one can indeed call someone a Nazi or any other name they so wish. Just because you assume otherwise or do not like it, does not make it true.

Thankfully, the vast majority of Americans still honor and respect freedom of speech.

There is currently no hate speech law in the USA, other countries have it. This was corrected in earlier posts, I figured that because the officer indicated that as grounds for the arrest that the state he worked in had such a law. But, laws that restrict speech are usually tossed by the supreme court. Here is an article on hate speech:





VANCOUVER, British Columbia — A couple of years ago, a Canadian magazine published an article arguing that the rise of Islam threatened Western values. The article's tone was mocking and biting, but it said nothing that conservative magazines and blogs in the United States did not say every day without fear of legal reprisal.

Things are different here. The magazine is on trial.

Under Canadian law, there is a serious argument that the article contained hate speech and that its publisher, Maclean's magazine, the nation's leading newsweekly, should be forbidden from saying similar things, forced to publish a rebuttal and made to compensate Muslims for injuring their "dignity, feelings and self respect."

The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, which held five days of hearings on those questions in Vancouver last week, will soon rule on whether Maclean's violated a provincial hate speech law by stirring up animosity toward Muslims.

As spectators lined up for the afternoon session last week, an argument broke out.

"It's hate speech!" yelled one man.

"It's free speech!" yelled another.

In the United States, that debate has been settled. Under the First Amendment, newspapers and magazines can say what they like about minority groups and religions - even false, provocative or hateful things - without legal consequence.

The Maclean's article, "The Future Belongs to Islam," was an excerpt from a book by Mark Steyn called "America Alone." The title was fitting: The United States, in its treatment of hate speech, as in so many areas of the law, takes a distinctive legal path.

"In much of the developed world, one uses racial epithets at one's legal peril, one displays Nazi regalia and the other trappings of ethnic hatred at significant legal risk and one urges discrimination against religious minorities under threat of fine or imprisonment," Frederick Schauer, a professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, wrote in a recent essay called "The Exceptional First Amendment."

"But in the United States," Schauer continued, "all such speech remains constitutionally protected."

Canada, Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India all have laws or have signed international conventions banning hate speech. Israel and France forbid the sale of Nazi items like swastikas and flags. It is a crime to deny the Holocaust in Canada, Germany and France.

Last week, the actress Brigitte Bardot, an animal rights activist, was fined €15,000, or $23,000, in France for provoking racial hatred by criticizing a Muslim ceremony involving the slaughter of sheep.

By contrast, U.S. courts would not stop the American Nazi Party from marching in Skokie, Illinois, in 1977, though the march was deeply distressing to the many Holocaust survivors there.

Six years later, a state court judge in New York dismissed a libel case brought by several Puerto Rican groups against a business executive who had called food stamps "basically a Puerto Rican program." The First Amendment, Justice Eve Preminger wrote, does not allow even false statements about racial or ethnic groups to be suppressed or punished just because they may increase "the general level of prejudice."

Some prominent legal scholars say the United States should reconsider its position on hate speech.

"It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken," Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books last month, "when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack."

Waldron was reviewing "Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment" by Anthony Lewis, the former New York Times columnist. Lewis has been critical of attempts to use the law to limit hate speech.

But even Lewis, a liberal, wrote in his book that he was inclined to relax some of the most stringent First Amendment protections "in an age when words have inspired acts of mass murder and terrorism." In particular, he called for a re-examination of the Supreme Court's insistence that there is only one justification for making incitement a criminal offense: the likelihood of imminent violence.

The imminence requirement sets a high hurdle. Mere advocacy of violence, terrorism or the overthrow of the government is not enough; the words must be meant to, and be likely to, produce violence or lawlessness right away. A fiery speech urging an angry racist mob immediately to assault a black man in its midst probably qualifies as incitement under the First Amendment. A magazine article - or any publication - aimed at stirring up racial hatred surely does not.

Lewis wrote that there is "genuinely dangerous" speech that does not meet the imminence requirement. "I think we should be able to punish speech that urges terrorist violence to an audience, some of whose members are ready to act on the urging," Lewis wrote. "That is imminence enough."

Harvey Silverglate, a civil liberties lawyer in Boston, disagreed.

"When times are tough," he said, "there seems to be a tendency to say there is too much freedom."

"Free speech matters because it works," Silverglate continued. Scrutiny and debate are more effective ways of combating hate speech than censorship, he said, and all the more so in the post-Sept. 11 era.

"The world didn't suffer because too many people read 'Mein Kampf,"' Silverglate said. "Sending Hitler on a speaking tour of the United States would have been quite a good idea."

Silverglate seemed to be echoing the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, whose 1919 dissent in Abrams v. United States eventually formed the basis for modern First Amendment law.

"The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market," Holmes wrote. "I think that we should be eternally vigilant," he added, "against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death."

The First Amendment is not, of course, absolute. The Supreme Court has said that the government may ban fighting words or threats. Punishments may be enhanced for violent crimes prompted by race hate. And private institutions, including universities and employers, are not subject to the First Amendment, which restricts only government activities.

But merely saying hateful things about minority groups, even with the intent to cause their members distress and to generate contempt and loathing, is protected by the First Amendment.

In 1969, for instance, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the conviction of a leader of a Ku Klux Klan group under an Ohio statute that banned the advocacy of terrorism. The Klan leader, Clarence Brandenburg, had urged his followers at a rally to "send the Jews back to Israel," to "bury" blacks, though he did not call them that, and to consider "revengeance" against politicians and judges who were unsympathetic to whites.

Only Klan members and journalists were present. Because Brandenburg's words fell short of calling for immediate violence in a setting where such violence was likely, the Supreme Court ruled that he could not be prosecuted for incitement.

In his opening statement in the Canadian magazine case, a lawyer representing the Muslim plaintiffs aggrieved by the Maclean's article pleaded with a three-member panel of the tribunal to declare that the article subjected his clients to "hatred and ridicule" and to force the magazine to publish a response.

"You are the only thing between racist, hateful, contemptuous Islamophobic and irresponsible journalism," the lawyer, Faisal Joseph, told the tribunal, "and law-abiding Canadian citizens."

In response, a lawyer for Maclean's all but called the proceeding a sham.

"Innocent intent is not a defense," the lawyer, Roger McConchie, said, in a bitter criticism of the British Columbia hate speech law. "Nor is truth. Nor is fair comment on true facts. Publication in the public interest and for the public benefit is not a defense. Opinion expressed in good faith is not a defense. Responsible journalism is not a defense."

Jason Gratl, a lawyer for the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, which has intervened in the case, was measured in his criticism of the law forbidding hate speech.

"Canadians do not have a cast-iron stomach for offensive speech," Gratl said in a telephone interview. "We don't subscribe to a marketplace of ideas. Americans as a whole are more tough-minded and more prepared for verbal combat."

Many foreign courts have respectfully considered the U.S. approach - and then rejected it.

A 1990 decision from the Canadian Supreme Court, for instance, upheld the criminal conviction of James Keegstra for "unlawfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group by communicating anti-Semitic statements." Keegstra, a teacher, had told his students that Jews are "money loving," "power hungry" and "treacherous."

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Robert Dickson said there was an issue "crucial to the disposition of this appeal: the relationship between Canadian and American approaches to the constitutional protection of free expression, most notably in the realm of hate propaganda."

Dickson said, "There is much to be learned from First Amendment jurisprudence." But he concluded that "the international commitment to eradicate hate propaganda and, most importantly, the special role given equality and multiculturalism in the Canadian Constitution necessitate a departure from the view, reasonably prevalent in America at present, that the suppression of hate propaganda is incompatible with the guarantee of free expression."

The distinctive U.S. approach to free speech, legal scholars say, has many causes. It is partly rooted in an individualistic view of the world. Fear of allowing the government to decide what speech is acceptable plays a role. So does history.

"It would be really hard to criticize Israel, Austria, Germany and South Africa, given their histories," for laws banning hate speech, said Schauer, the professor at Harvard, in an interview.

In Canada, however, the laws seem to stem from a desire to promote societal harmony. Three time zones east of British Columbia, the Ontario Human Rights Commission - while declining to hear a separate case against Maclean's - nonetheless condemned the article.

"In Canada, the right to freedom of expression is not absolute, nor should it be," the commission's statement said. "By portraying Muslims as all sharing the same negative characteristics, including being a threat to 'the West,' this explicit expression of Islamophobia further perpetuates and promotes prejudice toward Muslims and others."

British Columbia human rights law, unlike that in Ontario, does appear to allow claims based on statements published in magazines.

Steyn, the author of the Maclean's article, said the court proceeding illustrated some important distinctions. "The problem with so-called hate speech laws is that they're not about facts," he said in a telephone interview. "They're about feelings."

"What we're learning here is really the bedrock difference between the United States and the countries that are in a broad sense its legal cousins," Steyn added. "Western governments are becoming increasingly comfortable with the regulation of opinion. The First Amendment really does distinguish the U.S., not just from Canada but from the rest of the Western world."

I guess it's pretty simple, the freedom of expression is longer present here. He wasn't in a public place disturbing the peace, he was expressing himself and his anger towards the ever progressing train of despotism rolling through our nation.

Do not be fooled, the path to despotism is not paved with ups and downs, it's all downhill. The bar does not go back up. That's what this gentlemen is angry about, and he had every right to tell them to screw off.

The Officers should have just taken his words for what they were and been on their way. Instead they have to give a first hand demonstration of exactly what he was talking about. Imagine if he wasn't on camera, they would have made up a story about him throwing rocks at em, etc.

Not exactly sure where to stand on this one, your feet will get dirty no matter what.
1. He is an idiot. He started the whole incident, I could not see where the police had done anything wrong up to that point.
2. He is an idiot. To call someone a name to provoke them into something is a crime, and can be charged with battery. Remember, your rights end where mine begins, and vice versa.
3. He is an idiot. He knew what was coming, just so he could post it on youtube and become a hero. If he said anything that could take the officers mind off of what he was doing that could be construed as obstruction.
4. He is an idiot. I have nothing else, I just wanted to drive that point home.

Originally posted by YourPopRock

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by ColoradoJens

 

FYI - we still have crime, murderrs and all sorts of bad stuff going on WITH them around. When is the last time you heard of police solving a car theft, a mugging, a purse snatching? And now when is the last time you heard about the police assaulting someone, murdering someone or wrongfully arresting someone?

Hmm, well I would think that people would hear about police abuse before anything positive. Because sensationalism and profit is what drives the media machine.

If discussing the arrest of John Doe # 4 for a larceny or robbery sold newspapers, then it would be there. To think that crimes are not solved by police on a regular bases is ridiculous and without any foundation in truth or reality.

Why are we fed a steady diet of bull# by the MSM?

(to which it appears based on your bias, you are a victim)

Simple, it is their job to distract us from whats really important domestically and globally, yet remain profitable. And, they do a good job of it.

The folks who've found this site are fortunate, and have been exposed to a collective of thought that did not exist pre-internet. Make the most of it, let go of your hate and open your mind.

This may be very difficult for some people.

Because we as a culture have degraded spiritually ( and some of us mentally), we seek only negativity and feel better when we can blame someone else.

How sad.

Originally posted by Tephra
I guess it's pretty simple, the freedom of expression is longer present here. He wasn't in a public place disturbing the peace, he was expressing himself and his anger towards the ever progressing train of despotism rolling through our nation.

Do not be fooled, the path to despotism is not paved with ups and downs, it's all downhill. The bar does not go back up. That's what this gentlemen is angry about, and he had every right to tell them to screw off.

The Officers should have just taken his words for what they were and been on their way. Instead they have to give a first hand demonstration of exactly what he was talking about. Imagine if he wasn't on camera, they would have made up a story about him throwing rocks at em, etc.

edit on 7-7-2011 by Tephra because: (no reason given)

The guy stirred up a hornets nest.

When I interact with police officers, I give them more respect than is probably due to them. If pulled over in a traffic stop, I keep my hands in plain sight, usually on the steering wheel, unless directed to do otherwise by the officer. I refer to them as 'sir' when addressing them. I know what they can do if they want your day to get really bad, so I avoid trouble.

I don't like cops as a group. I have known a few 'good' ones and a lot of bad ones. But I will treat the individual cops with respect.

This guy may have had a plan for a viral video, I don't know.

1. The guy who recorded the video IS being a douche. I basically facepalmed to every statement he made. He just made all of us on this website look like paranoid retards.

2. The cop was also being a douche. I really don't think he had the right to stand on the guy's property without the homeowner's permission. The homeowner being loud still doesn't excuse the cops' actions.

I dunno this is kinda tough in ways... I think he went a tad bit over board when he started screaming. If he would have just said get off my property once, he already would have proven his point, since they did not get off his property. But to scream like that over and over started to sound a bit threatening. If any neighbor had heard him, that could very well be disorderly, I know I hate when my neighbors are screaming. He was purposely trying to get arrested I think, cause after he gave up his ID, it would have been all over and done with but he started getting more irate. Conclusion, I think they were both wrong. Bit of a fine line.


Deebo

The people agreeing that this guy deserved arrest are the ones causing this problem!!!

Its a word....who cares?? If i go up to someone and call them a name i cant be arrested....causing offense is NOT a crime.

Police abuse their powers....its always been the way.

The public should really brush up on the law and their rights....and use their new found knowledge to fight the system!

They were on his own private land....he asked them to leave....they had broken more laws than the guy filming!

reply to post by chancemusky


Ummm... Last time I checked you could call some one the N word or cracker or what ever... It's a bad idea but you could do so... Slander would be if I said you do coc aine(or what ever) when you never touched the stuff...