• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Police "Interference"... Crossing the street in a safe way.

Does this logic hold for any crime, Drowning Man? If gun runners are transporting illegal firearms to a certain location and a sting operation is set up, would such a warning be considered "free speech"?

You tell me. What speech critical against the government should be outlawed in your view? Should we outlaw signs that say, “Let’s Go Brandon”?

But to answer your question, treason is real, but very few are charged with the crime. it’s a tough hurdle for the prosecution to jump. Same here.
 
Last edited:
He was interfering.
This is the Utah statute regarding interference with a peace officer. Which part was he violating?

76-8-305. Interference with peace officer.
(1)A person is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if the person knows, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that a peace officer is seeking to effect a lawful arrest or detention of that person or another person and interferes with the arrest or detention by:
(a)use of force or any weapon;
(b)refusing to perform any act required by lawful order:
(i)necessary to effect the arrest or detention; and
(ii)made by a peace officer involved in the arrest or detention; or
(c)refusing to refrain from performing any act that would impede the arrest or detention.
 
This is the Utah statute regarding interference with a peace officer. Which part was he violating?

IIRC a police office is a public servant:

76-8-301. Interference with public servant.
(1)An individual is guilty of interference with a public servant if the individual:
(a)uses force, violence, intimidation, or engages in any other unlawful act with a purpose to interfere with a public servant performing or purporting to perform an official function;
 
IIRC a police office is a public servant:

76-8-301. Interference with public servant.
(1)An individual is guilty of interference with a public servant if the individual:
(a)uses force, violence, intimidation, or engages in any other unlawful act with a purpose to interfere with a public servant performing or purporting to perform an official function;
Since he doesn't use force, violence, or intimidation, you must be resting your argument on the final act: "any other unlawful act." Crossing the street is not an unlawful act.
 
Was he or was he not interfering?

Yes.

He was.

Intentionally.
He was preventing people from committing traffic infractions. Intentionally. It's a kind of "interference," according to the dictionary, but it's not the kind of interference that falls within the definition of unlawful interference under Utah law.

So unless you're saying crossing the street, in the crosswalk, with a safety flag, is an unlawful act, you don't appear to have substantiated your claim that he was breaking the law.
 
He was preventing people from committing traffic infractions. Intentionally. It's a kind of "interference," according to the dictionary, but it's not the kind of interference that falls within the definition of unlawful interference under Utah law.

So unless you're saying crossing the street, in the crosswalk, with a safety flag, is an unlawful act, you don't appear to have substantiated your claim that he was breaking the law.

In other words he was intentionally interfering with the duties of the officers..
 
A man is threatened with arrest for crossing the street with a flag that helps drivers to see that there is a pedestrian crossing the street because the cops are trying to do a sting operation to nail drivers with tickets for not yielding...

So...is the goal to make people safer, or revenue generation?


I hope this person gets a nice settlement from the police department
 
In other words he was intentionally interfering with the duties of the officers..
Preventing a traffic infraction is not interfering with police duties.

What "unlawful act" he was committing that was interfering with the officers?
 
Was he or was he not intentionally interfering with what the police were doing?

He was.

The entire video shows that.

“intentionally interfering with what the police are doing“ isn’t against the law

If the police want to search your house without a warrant and with no exigent circumstances and you refuse to let them, that’s not interference
 
In other words he was intentionally interfering with the duties of the officers..


Not really

He was not interfering with the police catching anyone. He was however helping prevent drivers from performing a moving violation. He was doing what the police should be doing, making the streets safer
 
Apples, meet oranges.

I quoted your post. What you posted is NOT the definition of interference.

And standing on one’s fourth amendment right is no different than standing on one’s first amendment right
 
Actually he was.

That was his intent.


He was not interfering with the work of police officers. Did he stop them from doing their job? Did he warn people who committed a criminal act so they could get away?

No, he helped prevent people from committing a moving violation.

Unless you believe the policy's job is revenue generation, he was not interfering
 
Does this logic hold for any crime, Drowning Man? If gun runners are transporting illegal firearms to a certain location and a sting operation is set up, would such a warning be considered "free speech"?

I want to return to this because I think it’s an interesting question.

In your situation, I think it depends on whether the government can prove conspiracy on the part of the person who is warning others about the police.

Is the person a lookout who is in league with the gun-runners? If so, then maybe the police have a case against them.

But maybe the person just doesn’t like cops and is putting a general warning to the neighborhood that there is police activity going on and to beware. In such case, it would seem to me to be protected speech.

Circling back to the situation in the video, I think it would be impossible to prove that the guy was knowingly trying to help people to break the law and get away with it. He was warning people of his crossing the street with a flag.
 
First, it wasn’t an “investigation”…it was a cop trap. Second that’s not interfering.

Almost always, interference isn’t defined as a physical act getting in the direct way of an officer. Crossing the street doesn’t fit the bill unless it was going into a taped off area where they are trying to preserve a crime scene or something like that.

Cops can and do charge people with all kinds of stupid crap that doesn’t stick, and one can argue just about anything…doesn’t make it legal
Interfering with a sting operation is obstruction of justice. And you don't have to physically get in the way of an officer. Even warning someone that there is a sting operation going on by phone can be considered obstruction of justice. You can argue that sting operations and charging people with obstruction who interfere with them are examples of cops playing dirty, but it is all legal.
 
I want to return to this because I think it’s an interesting question.

In your situation, I think it depends on whether the government can prove conspiracy on the part of the person who is warning others about the police.

Is the person a lookout who is in league with the gun-runners? If so, then maybe the police have a case against them.

But maybe the person just doesn’t like cops and is putting a general warning to the neighborhood that there is police activity going on and to beware. In such case, it would seem to me to be protected speech.

Circling back to the situation in the video, I think it would be impossible to prove that the guy was knowingly trying to help people to break the law and get away with it. He was warning people of his crossing the street with a flag.
The guy crossing the street has a strong case to get his charges lessened or even thrown out if he has a good lawyer. But the cops arresting him for obstruction of justice didn't break the law or violate his rights. If his crossing the street was interfering with a sting operation, and the police warned him of this, then his arrest is entirely legal and above board.
 
Interfering with a sting operation is obstruction of justice.

Again, that’s not how interference is defined legally. At least not in Utah. I posted the relevant law. Think different? Prove it.

And you don't have to physically get in the way of an officer. Even warning someone that there is a sting operation going on by phone can be considered obstruction of justice. You can argue that sting operations and charging people with obstruction who interfere with them are examples of cops playing dirty, but it is all legal.

Sting operations can be legal. But citizens warning others of sting operations is legal, too.

Again, I posted case law of drivers who flash their headlights to warn others of a speed trap, is protected free speech
 
Back
Top Bottom