• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Cops

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

L

LegalWithAnI

Guest
What is the name of your state? GA

Whats the most disrespectable thing I can do to a cop without getting arrested/beaten?

Can I flick him off?
Can I curse him out?
Can I spit near him?(Not at him but really close)
Etc
 


Just Blue

Senior Member
What is the name of your state? GA

Whats the most disrespectable thing I can do to a cop without getting arrested/beaten?

Can I flick him off?
Can I curse him out?
Can I spit near him?(Not at him but really close)
Etc
Beg for forgiveness for even existing!:rolleyes: :p
 

tranquility

Senior Member
You can flick him off. You can curse him as long as the words are not such to cause an immediate breach of the peace. I would not spit near him as that could be considered an assault. (Sometimes known as an attempted battery.)
----------
The Supreme Court said in Houston v. Hill 107 S. Ct. 2502, 482 U.S. 451 (U.S. 06/15/1987), :
"First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers."... “Speech is often provocative and challenging. . . . [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest."

and

"The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state."
--------------
Now, that's the theory. Let's get to the reality. Police have a lot of power. In court, when it's your word against theirs, juries believe the police. In most cases, all it takes is a little shift in a person's perspective to make something legal into something illegal. Even if an officer is upright, reverent, thrifty and brave, probable cause is a fairly low hurdle and a simple viewing of the facts through the officer's blue and now fiery red-tinged glasses can easily make something out of nothing.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
What is the name of your state? GA

Whats the most disrespectable thing I can do to a cop without getting arrested/beaten?

Can I flick him off?
Sure, but he may decide to talk to you to find out what may be the problem. At that point, you can be arrested for any outstanding warrants you have.

Can I curse him out?
Sure, but he may decide to talk to you to find out what may be the problem. At that point, you can be arrested for any outstanding warrants you have.

Can I spit near him?(Not at him but really close)
Spitting in public is usually not allowed...
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
LegalWithAnI said:
Whats the most disrespectable thing I can do to a cop without getting arrested/beaten?
Why?

Most people are raised to be civilized - what happened to you?

- Carl
 

tranquility

Senior Member
When they watch you get cuffed and stuffed into a squad car, all you'll get is laughed at.
[Note to Carl.] This is why a kid may have a certain disrespect for the police as the inference is that the *legal* behaviors sought to show disrespect could subject a person to arrest. Recall Justice O'Connor's words:

"The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state."

[Note to Curt581.] Intentionally violating a person's civil rights under color of authority is a felony.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
tranquility said:
[Note to Carl.] This is why a kid may have a certain disrespect for the police as the inference is that the *legal* behaviors sought to show disrespect could subject a person to arrest. Recall Justice O'Connor's words:

"The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state."

[Note to Curt581.] Intentionally violating a person's civil rights under color of authority is a felony.
I doubt Curt intended that to be the case. He was likely refering to the reality that very often people that engage in this kind of behavior are usually in the middle of other activity that gets them in trouble ... frequently I find that these are folks with warrants or who are high on drugs. Apparently paranoia gives way to complete stupidity at times.

Where I used to work, we would blow it off because there were plenty of little hoodlums that did that. Where I work now they wave at us with all five fingers - and, we KNOW the rare individual who doesn't ... That's when we run his name and find the warrant, and thank him for presenting himself for arrest.

- Carl
 

tranquility

Senior Member
Uh huh. What I think and believe is that if a person were to not respect Curt581s A-thor-A-tay he would violate that person's rights. He would demand identification and, later, claim he asked for it. He would detain the person and, later, claim the person was free to leave. I believe he would roughly pat the person down for weapons and dump out his backpack on the ground in a search. (Although, in order to play the game, he would say "you don't mind if I search this do you?" while taking it from the person and suddenly develop a hearing disorder.) What I think is that this happens every day to some extent and the officer can get away with it because it will get down to his word against the "suspect's".

As I warned the OP about in the beginning, the officer is going to harrass you if you do a show of disrespect. I tried to put a proper spin on it and give most officers the benefit of the doubt and show how just being a person will cause a viewpoint shift in perception of the facts. With Curt581s post, it makes it clear that some don't even need to be in the moment of judgment to make the decision to harrass a law-abiding citizen--he can do it in a cold and calculating manner. You can twist it how you want, but readers have all the facts and can take the entire context of the statement and make their own decision as to what was meant.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
tranquility said:
Uh huh. What I think and believe is that if a person were to not respect Curt581s A-thor-A-tay he would violate that person's rights.
I doubt you know him well enough to say that.

He would demand identification and, later, claim he asked for it. He would detain the person and, later, claim the person was free to leave. I believe he would roughly pat the person down for weapons and dump out his backpack on the ground in a search.
Based on what??

What I think is that this happens every day to some extent and the officer can get away with it because it will get down to his word against the "suspect's".
Lots of things happen every day ... that doesn't mean that the overwhelming majority of officers do it. Average citizens rape, plunder and pillage every day - that doesn't mean the average citizen is prone to do that, either.

The aberrant act is NOT an indicator of common behavior.

As I warned the OP about in the beginning, the officer is going to harrass you if you do a show of disrespect.
I doubt it. This sort of thing happens all the time and many times the officers just wave back and laugh, mumbling, "*******" under their breath. Other times, we run the guy's name and find a warrant, or, we make contact for reasons not entirely related to the gesture. The gesture may catch our attention, but when doofus is in a car parked the wrong way or without plates, he simply draws attention to himself.

With Curt581s post, it makes it clear that some don't even need to be in the moment of judgment to make the decision to harrass a law-abiding citizen--he can do it in a cold and calculating manner.
You criticize others here for adding "facts" not in the post, and it would seem you are guilty of doing just that based on a flippant remark that Curt made.


- Carl
 

tranquility

Senior Member
You criticize others here for adding "facts" not in the post, and it would seem you are guilty of doing just that based on a flippant remark that Curt made.
When a person who purports to be a police officer makes a statement which reasonable people can interpret to be illegal harrassment against a citizen who is behaving in a legal manner, I believe it is not flippant nor funny. I can go back and search his posts if you like, but he has made similar "flippant" comments in the past. That you refuse to accept the obvious nature of the remark and find it troubling, I find troubling.

(As to the rest, I do not personally know Curt581 in any way and have no knowledge of how he behaves while on duty. I base the facts, which I admittedly made up, solely on the comment(s) made by him and knowledge of the world at large. I do not in any way claim *he* has behaved in this manner, I only claim the type of officer who would make such comments might behave in such manner and some certainly have. The vast majority of police officers behave in a legal manner. As do the vast majority of citizens. I dream of the day when the police are required to video all contacts through the day. With the current technology, that day is not too far away. Then we can stop this pretense and find the guilty, guilty. Citizen or cop.)
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
tranquility said:
When a person who purports to be a police officer makes a statement which reasonable people can interpret to be illegal harrassment against a citizen who is behaving in a legal manner, I believe it is not flippant nor funny.
His comment did not in any way say that he - or anyone else - would break the law and stuff the offending twit into the back of a police car. I'm sorry you read something more into it.

I, too, have made flippant comments - here and elsewhere. Just the other day when we arrested a guy who was subject to citation because he refused to identify himself, he commented that he had taken us to federal court before ... I commented, "I guess we'll be there again." I suppose one could interpret my comment to be an admission that what we did was wrong or unlawful (which it wasn't), but it might be interpreted that way. At least the paper spelled my name right!

I can go back and search his posts if you like, but he has made similar "flippant" comments in the past. That you refuse to accept the obvious nature of the remark and find it troubling, I find troubling.
Maybe it's because I'm a cop and I understand the gallows humor and flippant commentary more than those who are not (or no longer) in the field. If I took seriously or with shock and dismay every flippant comment I hear, I'd be in apoplexy every day!

"He should be shot" ... "That guy is an ass and oughta be thumped" ... "someone oughta put him in his place" ... etc. None of it implies in the slightest that the officer(s) in question would ever do such a thing. Life is serious enough without having to inject literal interpretation to every off-hand and flippant remark written or spoken.

I dream of the day when the police are required to video all contacts through the day.
Nifty idea ... but technology, convenience, and price has not yet made this a viable alternative. And, I doubt that this will occur even within my lifetime. San Diego County experimented with "Cop Cams" for a time. They were cool as the crooks almost all pled, and it reduced complaints to near zero. However, the devices broke - particularly in fights or foot pursuits, were subject to damage in inclement weather, and were quite expensive to purchase, maintain and archive.

Heck, we cannot yet afford to put cameras in all the cars in CA - much less on all the cops! Most agencies in CA have no more than a handful of cars with cameras, and these often tend to be DUI cars.

- Carl
 

tranquility

Senior Member
I am aware of the gallows humor and how it can be misinterpreted. I am also aware of the police culture which often allows things just as I mentioned in a previous post. I have no doubt crime fighting would be better with video and wonder why so many police unions are against it.

So, the next time I hear an officer say, "If he's not good for this he's good for something else." I'll know it's just because he/she is joking. I know because you told me so.

For those interested, further information can be found in (All are available from www.ssrn.com):
--PATTERNS OF INJUSTICE: POLICE BRUTALITY IN THE COURTS
--ETHICS, INTEGRITY AND POLICE MISCONDUCT:
ANALYZING ETHICAL AWARENESS, STANDARDS AND ACTION OF
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IN THE UNITED STATES
--Terrorism, Federalism, and Police Misconduct
--Organizational Culture and Police Misconduct
--UNCONSTITUTIONAL POLICE SEARCHES AND COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

and many others depending on what specific arenas you decide to search.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top