Huh, I thought that the anti-mask laws were found to be an unconstitutional breach of freedom of assembly, even for the Klan. Good thing he's a billionaire, so he can fight it in court.
I remember reading (~20 years ago?) that anti public-disguise laws were occasionally used to harass and arrest transvestites and pre-legal-ID-change transsexuals, even though no masks were involved (I don't know whether that means other states phrased their anti-disguise laws differently from Florida, or whether these were in addition to anti-mask laws).
I'd seen the laws described as being intended against criminals; I'd not made the connection to the Klan, despite having heard that such laws were more common in southern states. (I also read, back then, that they'd been successfully challenged in several places. Hmm.
"Nichols said if investigators search hard enough, they can determine just about anyone is breaking some law."
Tue, 'dat. And I've heard several people (including die-hard conspiracy-nuts, of course, but also usually very reasonable-sounding people) suggest that this situation is, whether intended or not, is appreciated by police (and thus some politicians) who like the ability to extend their power over arbitrary people when convenient -- they know they can find some infraction of something, to use an excuse to detain or intimidate any random citizen, over whom they'd have no hold if the target were 100% law-abiding.
[T]hey know they can find some infraction of something, to use an excuse to detain or intimidate any random citizen, over whom they'd have no hold if the target were 100% law-abiding.
I don't believe the police actually need a reason to detain people, at least not in America. The detainee may subsequently not be charged at all, or be released the next day by a judge, or maybe after the fact the detention can be fought in court, but I believe the police can detain anyone for several days without having to charge them with anything.
That's party by design. Laws try to avoid letting people get away with things by covering such sweeping grounds that a lot of people who aren't really doing anything wrong are technically violating it. Letting a child pornographer go free on a technicality is a far worse thing than outlawing naked baby calendars that nobody seems to object to. The hope is that the law will only be enforced when appropriate which, as this article indicates, isn't always the case.
Now, mask-wearing laws do have the reasonable propose of keeping people from committing crimes anonymously, but I don't think in the end they're worth it.
In this case my real reaction is-- Man, guy didn't resist arrest. You should let him finish his damn sushi.
Technically, he resisted by continuing to do a behaviour he had been expressly told to stop doing three week prior.
Also, very few people actually cooperate with police. Most claim to cooperate while simultaneously resisting in ways they fail to see as resisting. See "don't tase me bro."
Huh-- missed that part. In that case yeah, you get the law explained to you and then you don't follow it? Yeah I don't mind you not getting to finish your sushi.
Um technically, no. While if the statute is explained to him and he violates it he is committing a crime, you are not resisting arrest simply because you have committed a crime.
I could shoot a man in the head in front of the police station, lay down my gun and li on the pavement, face-down with my hands behind my head. Murder? Yes. Resisting? No.
There are two issues where Americans arent quite as free as we think we are: - Unlawful imprisonment/false arrest: These don't mean they can't bring you in, it just means if they don' charge you they have to let you go in 24 - 72 hours. - Stupid Laws don't 'matter'. They matter if the cop, judge and jury all think so. Alot of the time 'stupid' laws are used get stupid people to move along and stop being stupid. And cops *can* apply most laws selectively. Most likely in the first incident the cop was having a bad day, and the second time he decided the guy wasnt respecting him. (But there are LOTS of stupid laws out there that people can get pegged with (like Sodomy... which don't mean what you think it means, legally)).
So the cop in this case is being stupid and running up his department's legal bill. But this guy doesn't have much of a case... because even if the law is stupid and is struck down, it doesn't make this cop 'wrong' for enforcing it.
I think you misunderstand. I am not saying that the officer in this case is not a moron, or that this is a valid enforcement of the law. I'm stating that the individual has demonstrated a lack of desire to cooperate with the police officer involved by repeating a behaviour despite being warned, and that it is extremely common for people to claim to cooperation while still resisting arrest.
That the police officer is a moron does not mean the person involved is a helpless victim. He played a part in this as well, and we have no way of knowing how significant that part is.
Dammit, I was thinking Ohio. For some reason I thought Florida might be cool with people running around in costume... y'know, with all those theme parks.
You overthought it. My thought process was more along the lines of "where is someone more likely to be dressed up as Batman and eating sushi?" No question.
"No person or persons over 16 years of age shall, while wearing any mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter upon, or be or appear upon any lane, walk, alley, street, road, highway, or other public way in this state."
Was the officer who had him arrested ever seen in public wearing sunglasses?
Maybe they need to start arresting all the so called "Muslims" wearing do-rags over their face. I'm not discriminatory. The law is the law, fair is fair. Am i right? Let me know what you think. "
I am thinking of a variety of things, most of which are composed of swearing and stabbing.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-24 08:27 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-24 08:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-24 09:53 pm (UTC)I'd seen the laws described as being intended against criminals; I'd not made the connection to the Klan, despite having heard that such laws were more common in southern states. (I also read, back then, that they'd been successfully challenged in several places. Hmm.
"Nichols said if investigators search hard enough, they can determine just about anyone is breaking some law."
Tue, 'dat. And I've heard several people (including die-hard conspiracy-nuts, of course, but also usually very reasonable-sounding people) suggest that this situation is, whether intended or not, is appreciated by police (and thus some politicians) who like the ability to extend their power over arbitrary people when convenient -- they know they can find some infraction of something, to use an excuse to detain or intimidate any random citizen, over whom they'd have no hold if the target were 100% law-abiding.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-25 02:47 am (UTC)I don't believe the police actually need a reason to detain people, at least not in America. The detainee may subsequently not be charged at all, or be released the next day by a judge, or maybe after the fact the detention can be fought in court, but I believe the police can detain anyone for several days without having to charge them with anything.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-25 04:34 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-25 05:16 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-24 11:54 pm (UTC)In this case my real reaction is-- Man, guy didn't resist arrest. You should let him finish his damn sushi.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-25 05:18 am (UTC)Also, very few people actually cooperate with police. Most claim to cooperate while simultaneously resisting in ways they fail to see as resisting. See "don't tase me bro."
(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-25 05:43 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-25 07:58 am (UTC)I could shoot a man in the head in front of the police station, lay down my gun and li on the pavement, face-down with my hands behind my head. Murder? Yes. Resisting? No.
There are two issues where Americans arent quite as free as we think we are:
- Unlawful imprisonment/false arrest: These don't mean they can't bring you in, it just means if they don' charge you they have to let you go in 24 - 72 hours.
- Stupid Laws don't 'matter'. They matter if the cop, judge and jury all think so. Alot of the time 'stupid' laws are used get stupid people to move along and stop being stupid. And cops *can* apply most laws selectively. Most likely in the first incident the cop was having a bad day, and the second time he decided the guy wasnt respecting him. (But there are LOTS of stupid laws out there that people can get pegged with (like Sodomy... which don't mean what you think it means, legally)).
So the cop in this case is being stupid and running up his department's legal bill. But this guy doesn't have much of a case... because even if the law is stupid and is struck down, it doesn't make this cop 'wrong' for enforcing it.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-25 08:21 am (UTC)That the police officer is a moron does not mean the person involved is a helpless victim. He played a part in this as well, and we have no way of knowing how significant that part is.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-25 12:02 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-25 03:23 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-26 05:42 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-25 05:06 am (UTC)Was the officer who had him arrested ever seen in public wearing sunglasses?
*Gasp* Arrest that cross-burning racist bastard!
(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-25 01:20 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-25 05:26 pm (UTC)"Posted by ( sobeit ) on 01/23/2009 at 11:39 pm.
Maybe they need to start arresting all the so called "Muslims" wearing do-rags over their face. I'm not discriminatory. The law is the law, fair is fair. Am i right? Let me know what you think. "
I am thinking of a variety of things, most of which are composed of swearing and stabbing.