Blacks Arrested for "Contempt of Cop" at 8x Higher Rate

gonzojournals said:
Caribou is better than Starbucks, imo.


Also, in response to RString-- why should I take the word of some random felon over the word of a cop? Do you really think that criminals aren't smart enough to know that if they accuse the cops at their trial of some wrong doing, shit heads such as yourself are going to run to their defence?
Click to expand...

Yeah, goddamn liberty, it's a bitch isn't it?

We should just get rid of all responsbility to cops, allow them to arrest anyone, hold them indefintely, give them devices of torture...

Crime will not exist then.
 
AssHatZombie said:
I've smashed your incompetent intellect into smithereens on several occasions. You have no room to brag, Senore Subpar.
Click to expand...

People on this board that hate me (and there are many) would not even say that you have ever "smashed [my]...intellect"...you are a troll, and a retarded one at that.
 
gonzojournals said:
I'm allowed to use lethal force to prevent an illegal arrest?

Call me crazy, but I think I won't take your word as law.
Click to expand...
No state do allows you to use lethal force to stop an illegal arrest. SOME states, like my own, allows you to use reasonable force to stop an illegal arrest but boy howdy you better be right. In SOME states lethal force can be used to combat illegal lethal force by the police. Again New Mexico allows self defense if the killing of a cop if you can show that the lethal force used by the cop was illegal. We had a guy here in Las Cruces that shot a cop in the neck with a .22 after the cop pulled a gun on him and set the hammer to single action. There were numerous witnesses and the jury acquitted very quickly. There was then a law suit against the police, cause the old man got beaten up pretty badly after shooting a cop and that too was settled very quickly. Almost everyone in the criminal defense world calls obstruction contempt of cop. Hell I got threatened with it two days ago because the cop was fucking with one of our witnesses for grand jury. She is a veteranarian who had a dog in her truck with the windows rolled down half way and outside temp of 69 degrees. He was telling the vet he was going to cite her for leaving her dog in an enclosed vehicle. I asked what the ambient air temp had to be for that particular ordinance to kick in, and he told me one more question outta me and I was going to jail for obstruction. Then I pointed out that I had a recorder on in my shirt pocket and he shut the fuck up and went away. The cops just didn't want the vet testifying at grand jury.
 
RStringfield said:
This referred to as a "cover charge" so they can beat the crap out of you.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/353020_obstructmain28.asp

When Seattle police arrest someone for "obstructing a public officer," chances are nearly dead even they're arresting an African-American -- in a city that's predominantly white.

Once arrested, the accused could spend a night in jail, but the odds are relatively favorable -- as good as a coin toss -- that the prosecutors will drop the case, often as a result of a review the next morning.

In fact, African-Americans are arrested for the sole crime of obstructing eight times as often as whites when population is taken into account, a Seattle P-I investigation of six years of Seattle Municipal Court records and data found.

...

Often hotly contested, obstruction arrests have become so questionable in Seattle that some defense attorneys call it the "cover charge."

"If they are going to beat the crap out of someone, they have to level a charge," said Seattle attorney Frank Shoichet, who has sued police officers more than 20 times. "That's why it's called the cover charge."

In fact, some officers described the gross misdemeanor as "contempt of cop," indicating a charge used primarily for retaliatory purposes.
Click to expand...

This is somewhat reminiscent of the 1970s into the 1980s in the UK when police, especially in the Met (london) used the so-called "sus" laws. The full title was "suspect loitering" and the legislation they used, although amended over the years, originated in about the late 18th century, its origins probably being even further back in the vagrancy laws that were enacted about the time of Elizabeth I. Anyway, it was alleged that police, as I said, especially in London, used the sus laws particularly against West Indian youths. I don't know if it was ever really substantiated but enough yelling and shouting from pressure groups and politicians saw the law repealed. It's something of an irony because a lot of the political force used against the police use of sus laws came from the now Labour government, from people like Jack Straw. Of course now the Labour government is possibly one of the most authoritarian since the Chartist movement but no doubt they don't recognise their own rank hypocrisy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top