• 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.

lwf said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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
Click to expand...
That is one particular circumstance and is not the case in every state. Just because flashing your headlights to oncoming traffic in order to bring their speed within conformity with the law has been ruled protected speech in a few states, that has nothing to do with warning others about a sting operation. It is NOT protected speech, and it is illegal, if usually a minor violation. Police are well within their rights to charge someone who warns others about a sting operation with a crime, just not if they do so by flashing their headlights in some states.
 
lwf said:
That is one particular circumstance and is not the case in every state. Just because flashing your headlights to oncoming traffic in order to bring their speed within conformity with the law has been ruled protected speech in a few states, that has nothing to do with warning others about a sting operation. It is NOT protected speech, and it is illegal, if usually a minor violation. Police are well within their rights to charge someone who warns others about a sting operation with a crime, just not if they do so by flashing their headlights in some states.
Click to expand...

Federal case law calls bullshit on this statement
 
lwf said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-police-are-watching-might-indeed-be-illegal/
Click to expand...

What are you claiming that this op-Ed proves?

The police in the sting are trying to create a situation where people may or may not break the law. But as people approach the crosswalk, they have not broken the law, yet.

His warning doesn’t protect someone who is guilty of a crime that the police are trying to arrest or detain. What you posted has nothing to do with what we are talking about
 
Drowning Man said:
Yes, it does
Click to expand...
Federal case law has nothing to do with it. You can be fined $1000 for flashing your headlights to warn oncoming drivers of a speed trap in Maryland.

Even if the idiot in the video lives in a state where flashing your headlights doesn't rise to the level of obstruction, that isn't what this guy did. If he gets a lawyer who argues that what he did ALSO doesn't rise to the level of interference just like flashing one's headlights, and he gets a sympathetic judge, he might get the charges thrown out. OR the judge might make an example out of him and levy a hefty fine.
 
lwf said:
Federal case law has nothing to do with it. You can be fined $1000 for flashing your headlights to warn oncoming drivers of a speed trap in Maryland.
Click to expand...

I’d love to challenge that law.

lwf said:
Even if the idiot in the video lives in a state where flashing your headlights doesn't rise to the level of obstruction, that isn't what this guy did. If he gets a lawyer who argues that what he did ALSO doesn't rise to the level of interference just like flashing one's headlights, and he gets a sympathetic judge, he might get the charges thrown out. OR the judge might make an example out of him and levy a hefty fine.
Click to expand...

Why do you hate our rights and the Constitution?

Again, in Utah, what you posted isn’t even the law. I posted the interference law for Utah where this took place. The judge who did not throw out the case wold have to break the law to enforce any kind of sentence against him
 
Drowning Man said:
I’d love to challenge that law.

Why do you hate our rights and the Constitution?

Again, in Utah, what you posted isn’t even the law. I posted the interference law for Utah where this took place. The judge who did not throw out the case wold have to break the law to enforce any kind of sentence against him
Click to expand...
I don't hate rights or the constitution. I'm simply stating what our rights are.

https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter8/76-8-S305.html

1649521945158.png


How does this not qualify? The officer warned him that his actions were impeding the lawful detention of another person and the man refused to restrain from performing that act.
 
Because no one was under arrest or detention…

Again, the people In the cars approaching the crosswalk had not done anything wrong to be arrested or put under detention
 
Drowning Man said:
Because no one was under arrest or detention…

Again, the people In the cars approaching the crosswalk had not done anything wrong to be arrested or put under detention
Click to expand...
How do you know?
 
lwf said:
How do you know?
Click to expand...

Because it was a sting operation and their only objection was using a flag when crossing the street…
 
Drowning Man said:
Because it was a sting operation and their only objection was using a flag when crossing the street…
Click to expand...
The goal of sting operations is to lawfully detain suspects and arrest criminals. Interfering with sting operations is a crime. What constitutes interference is debatable, but ultimately up to the police officers involved and the judge.
 
lwf said:
The goal of sting operations is to lawfully detain suspects and arrest criminals. Interfering with sting operations is a crime.
Click to expand...

The goal of the operation is to catch people who may commit crimes. Until they do commit crimes or traffic infractions, his actions can’t even be considered interference by definition.

lwf said:
What constitutes interference is debatable, but ultimately up to the police officers involved and the judge.
Click to expand...

Er…the police and judges have to go by the law. Not what the would like the law to say.
 
Drowning Man said:
Then the driver is an idiot?

What are you trying to say?
Click to expand...
Traffic control is a police function - if this guy does it and causes an accident who is responsible? Should the police have dealt with this potential hazard or what?
 
Bullseye said:
Traffic control is a police function - if this guy does it and causes an accident who is responsible?
Click to expand...

Does what? Walk across the street safely?

How, in your world, could that possibly create some sort of causation that would in any way make him responsible for an accident?

If the cops decided not to set up this kind of a trap, would they have been responsible for pedestrian accidents?

Bullseye said:
Should the police have dealt with this potential hazard or what?
Click to expand...

The potential hazard of walking across the street safely?
 
Drowning Man said:
wDoes what? Walk across the street safely?

How, in your world, could that possibly create some sort of causation that would in any way make him responsible for an accident?

If the cops decided not to set up this kind of a trap, would they have been responsible for pedestrian accidents?



The potential hazard of walking across the street safely?
Click to expand...
Never mind, it's obvious beyond you.
 
Drowning Man said:
The flags were set out for pedestrians to use before the sting operation but really that’s irrelevant anyway...
Click to expand...

Hamish Howl said:
It's not irrelevant. If the flags were set out for pedestrian use, then the police don't have a leg to stand on.
Click to expand...
Weren't you just kinda agreeing with him Hamish? Unless I am wrong... so why would you argue with him DMan?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom