[nmnita]

Originally Posted by Ray Deckard

Thanks again Rich for educating all of us because most of us here don't even know the Constitution. I guess most of us here are at best high school drop outs? Or we are so busy working paying for that new Car we have no time to be self educated.

Thanks Rich

speak for yourself. Let me also add, it is good to hear from a retired officer, no one respects police more than me, but this doesn't mean he understands the constitution either.

[RogMar]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Outstanding! I appreciate knowing that during my years in law enforcement trying to get criminals off the street to make towns safer for law-abiding citizens I lied, was a rights-violator and above all was abusive. What a relief now that I'm retired and don't have to deal with mouthy, ignorant morons any longer.

High five, brother.

30 years in the mix and now I grin every time I see the pension check turn up in my checking account.

Haters will be haters.

[RichCapeCod]

Originally Posted by Ray Deckard

Rich:

Would you please explain in clear and simple terms to those of us who are not educated why the home owner did not break any law?

Thanks

Nope. I surrender. Folks are getting too worked up in this thread as is. You guys is on your own!!

To quote Pogo (newspaper cartoon character from quite a few years ago);

"We have seen the enemy and they is us!"

Merry Xmas all!

[RogMar]

Originally Posted by FriendlyFeller

I you ask an undercover cop if they are a cop they have to tell you, its in the constitution.

I worked a lot of under cover, and no. I never gave a flat out "no" response, but there are a 100 ways to steer that conversation.

"Uh....Ok....ya got me, man. I'm an undercover cop. Will you sell me the stolen guns anyway?".

[Old Fossil]

Originally Posted by RichCapeCod

Nope. I surrender. Folks are getting too worked up in this thread as is. You guys is on your own!!

To quote Pogo (newspaper cartoon character from quite a few years ago);

"We have seen the enemy and they is us!"

Merry Xmas all!

Hey Rich, let's drive over to Arivaca and forget all this O.K. ?

[thegreenflute334]

Originally Posted by RogMar

I worked a lot of under cover, and no. I never gave a flat out "no" response, but there are a 100 ways to steer that conversation.

"Uh....Ok....ya got me, man. I'm an undercover cop. Will you sell me the stolen guns anyway?".

I've got a friend that did undercover (he's retired now) for some years. He's my buddy but I know what that guy went through and he doesn't have to say anything. He can look at a picture of a cop ( in the newspaper) and can tell how long they have been on the force and what kind of cop they are.

[RichCapeCod]

Originally Posted by Old Fossil

Hey Rich, let's drive over to Arivaca and forget all this O.K. ?

You're on!!

PS

How the heck did you ever find this thread?!? I just accidentally stumbled on it myself.

[Yakscsd]

I'm a big fan of holding police accountable, and not caving in to their deceipt and trickery. That said, this guy did a horrible job of resisting the abuse.

[RichCapeCod]

Originally Posted by nmnita

speak for yourself. Let me also add, it is good to hear from a retired officer, no one respects police more than me, but this doesn't mean he understands the constitution either.

Quite right! I don't have a clue and I'd be the first to admit it. In fact, you ought to see what these nine morons (the members of the U.S. Supreme Court) have to say about the subject (City of Houston v. Hill, 1987):

"...Moreover, although speech might be prohibited if it consists of "fighting words" that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace, the ordinance in question is not limited to such expressions, but broadly applies to speech that "in any manner . . . interrupt[s] any policeman," and thereby impermissibly infringes the constitutionally protected freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action. ..."

"Although the preservation of liberty depends in part upon the maintenance of social order, the First Amendment requires that officers and municipalities respond with restraint in the face of verbal challenges to police action, since a certain amount of expressive disorder is inevitable in a society committed to individual freedom, and must be protected if that freedom would survive."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../451/case.html

*

"The U.S. Supreme Court said it best in City of Houston v. Hill ((1987) 482 U.S. 451, 462-463): “The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.”"

UNCUFFED: Cursing at Cops: Free Speech?

*

Here's a lady who got $100,000 for cursing at the police.
Georgia Woman Gets $100K Over Her Arrest For Cursing At Police : The Two-Way : NPR

You may not like it, but it's established law. I don't like it anymore than anyone else, but until you put in a new Supreme Court (and rewrite the constitution) you can curse at a police officer.

Feel free to continue the debate.

[FS250]

He got what what he deserved. He clearly was DISTURBING THE PEACE. The distance the officers were from him did not fall into normal conversational distance so the fact they heard what he was yelling proved the charge. He's watched too many infowars.