Just so you know, those are overtime, off duty details paid for by construction companies (but required as part of the bid).

Yeah I'm just being cute.

It is good money though for those that can get it.

I am not going to talk about this case because I don't know what happened but if we went back to the way it should be constitutionally and just left people alone a lot of this would stop. I know the courts have given police the ability to stop people for very little to honestly no reason at all but that's wrong. I don't want strangers walking through my neighborhood at 3 am either but honestly they have the right to do it and the right to do it without being hassled by the police. It's a tough pill to swallow because some of the bad guys will get away but we need to stop hassling people for no reason. We have given up too many of our rights for a little perceived safety.

Telling an officer to fuck off is not disorderly conduct. Not only have a won trials on that issue personally, I know the case law from the supreme court of Alabama.

L.M.A.W v. State
Swann v. Huntsville
Smith v. Anniston
Skelton v. Birmingham
Shinutt v. Huntsville

Those cases all say that cussing at a police officer, calling him names and making obscene gestures to one are not disorderly conduct, harassment or any other crime.

Disorderly conduct requires intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof. The courts are very clear that a police officer is not the public and should be able to withstand that behavior based upon their "extensive training". The only way conduct towards an officer can be disorderly conduct is if it is observed by the actual public and those citizens are inconvenienced, annoys, or alarmed.

But it's disorderly if the officer wants it to be, right? Right. And then he gets to do what he wants and let the courts parse out everything else later.

NOT saying that is 100% of the time but that's what happens sometimes. Same thing going on here at Huntsville High ... they have decreed that students cannot post images, videos, etc. of fights during school on any kind of social media.

That never would hold up in court based on First Amendment rights. Never. Yet the school board, I'll guarantee, figures that they'll just do what they want for now and handle any kind of court challenge later. And that's BS, too.

This goes on from the President to local stuff. Do it, don't worry about the constitutionality or legal deal, and we'll let the courts shuffle it out later. But go ahead now and do it.

since I believe both sides are at fault, I believe this kind of thing will continue. You give the cops a tool to help with law enforcement and they take it to the extreme and push the boundries, try to help the other side and they take it to the extreme, the worst part is, my tax dollers are funding both groups.

That is why I said it won't get far in court, but then the question is raised, what is in public? Granted someone could have quietly told the officer to FU, but that is not the way it happens. When they do that they want everyone within earshot to know they did it. Granted all the cases I can think of and been involved in also included other belligerent behavior and/or other charges, usually involving intoxication and our municipal judges always ruled that the behavior was disorderly, but like I said, I don't know of a case where a person wasn't already arrested and quietly told the officer to FU. I do remember one case where a little white girl shot an old officer the bird and he felt it was an obscene gesture and the judge ruled it wasn't and was just "a universal sign of disapproval".

That exact scenario happened to me, I was working on a house where the police set up radar all the time. They pulled a guy over and he started yelling and cursing and causing a big scene. He was already out of the car so I don't know if he was the driver or not. After a while I was tired of hearing the language and walked around front and asked what was going on. He kept yelling and the police came over to me and said they would be glad to lock him up but I would have to sign the warrant. I told them I would they cuffed him and I wrote a statement. I never heard what happened but they took him away in cuffs.

When I was 23 I was arrested for public intox, disorderly conduct and police harassment. Outcome was a $100 dollar fine in Bham municipal court just to make it go away. But here's the thing I wasn't guilty of any of those charges.

The bull lesbian cop who arrested me was famous for just randomly arresting white men. Later I heard she was arrested for murder of her female lover. I was told by the processing lady at the police office that sweetheart its going to be ok. That the arresting female officer does it all the time (arrest men with no cause). I was a geeky white physics student at the time of my arrest at UAB.

I have gone to jury duty and looked judges in the face and told them they don't wont me on a jury because if a system can be so far slanted in favor of the police that unless they have video evidence that 100% showing a criminal act, then I would not convict. But, I also didn't want a criminal to be let free. I just knew that if it happened to me then anyone can be arrested with very little to no cause for harassment, disorderly conduct or public intox. Those offenses to me appear to be in the police playbook for arrest with minimal cause.

Jawbone I am a REASONABLE PERSON and I believe that a person black or white has the right to be walking down a street and that person shouldn't be suspect unless their actions are overt and conspicuously differing from norm (In the neighborhood of the shooting incident it would be normal to be walking with a stick in the night)

I believe THAT OUR POLICE SHOULD BE OUR BEST OF THE BEST and that in todays age EVERY INTERACTION WITH THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE VIDEOED AND AUDIO RECORDED. It protects both the officer and the public.

But, also Jawbone I understand it must be very difficult for your profession, thank you so much for protecting us.

Mr. Crockett, while you consider yourself a reasonable person, the courts wouldn't by your obvious and admitted bias. You are one of the few people in the US that think our legal system is slanted towards the police. Rightfully so, it is the other way around. If that were the case the burden of proof for conviction would be reasonable suspicion or preponderance of the evidence, but instead it is beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a pretty tough standard that LE and prosecutors have to meet. O.J. says hi and he sure is glad the burden of proof is as tough as it is. A good example of a guilty person walking, rightfully so because of the burden of proof.

That would be wonderful when you can find someone willing to cheese up the money it would take to hire and retain the best and record every interaction.

probably more than a few feel this way

Please provide me with examples of how the CJ system is slanted towards the police? Take your time and think on it as I have to work tonight so I'm going to nap for awhile.

I don't think people are really saying the entire legal system is biased toward the police. I believe what people are saying is that you can get arrested for almost anything if a cop wants to do it and unless you want to fight it in court with time and money and then even appeal that decision if you have to with more time and money it is biased toward an arrest at least. We all saw it in the night hunting saga that played out here last year.

jaw
you said yourself if told the cop to FU, which is totally legal. He's gonna put the screws to me.

Re-read what I said and then look up Disorderly Conduct in Alabama.

I could provide dozens. But, I am not going to argue. You will never agree that any conduct by a cop is wrong, you have shown that numerous times.

As for your question of "what is the public anyway". The cases I posted are clear on that. It doesn't matter how loud I yell, you fucking pig, motherfucker. It doesn't matter unless they can bring someone to court who says they were effected that isn't a cop. That shit might fly in a muni court where the judge never goes against the city and police because his job depends on it. People should appeal those cases and put them in front of a jury so they can see the idiot cop explain his illegal arrest.

I have done it and never lost one.

Look at what the police officer's attorney states in his press conference:


http://www.wsfa.com/story/31368316/...icer-ac-smiths-attorney-on-first-at-four


Take a look at the 9th paragraph. The attorney for the officer says that the officer essentially did exactly what I state above he did - and what MPD chief of police says he did: gets out of his car (mistake #1), confronts Mr. Gunn and starts a confrontation - that escalates with Mr. Gunn running away. And that leads to the cop eventually shooting the man.

That attorney says clearly that the officer went thru a series of *escalations* that led to the officer shooting Mr. Gunn.

The government cannot legally/constitutionally take a man's life for running away. Or for trying to get away from an illegal arrest or detention.

The government cannot legally/constitutionally shoot a man to even effectuate a lawful/probable cause based arrest.

*********

Here is how the situation should be handled:

#1 a young inexperience officer (especially a white one) should not be alone on patrol on 3rd shift in a poor black high crime neighborhood. He should have a partner with him.

#2 he should just roll down his window and say: " hello, Officer Smith here working the graveyard shift in your neighborhood, is everything ok?"

Gunn: "yes"
Smith: "do you live around here?"
Gunn: "yes, I am on my way home, I work night shift too - I live right there in that house"
Smith: "ok, have a good night and be careful, we have a lot of burglaries around here lately"
Gunn: "ok"

Then all Officer Smith has to do is watch the man go in to his house. End of encounter. No shooting and no news story.

If he doesn't and keeps walking past the house he said he lived in, then Officer Smith investigates further: "hey, you said you lived in that house but you walked past it, why did you tell me a story?".....etc. Emphasis on investigation - as the law/Constitution does not allow the police to arrest someone for mere lying about such a thing. And at that point it would be a good time to call for back up to investigate further.

*********

I am a conservative law and order man. I believe in the death penalty. And support the police and law enforcement, but they are only human and sometimes, not often, they are just in the wrong. And we cannot blindly automatically take the side of the police 100% of the time. 1% of the time they are wrong. Maybe 2%. In some places it might even be a higher percent.God only knows.

Outdooor, your post was very immature and inappropriate. I would never get on here and call someone names like that. Not cool or mature adult at all.

There is no "anti police sentiment" whatsoever.

I am a conservative Christian law and order man. And a Christian ethicist - and a Constitutionalist. I am giving my unbiased opinion as opposed to automatically siding with the police against a black man as most on here are doing. **Automatically** siding with the police against a black man who is walking down his own street near his own house is racism. Racism is sin.

Respectfully.