Well, this is a bit of a doozy. This case — via the Institute for Justice — involves a possible First Amendment violation but somehow ends with a judicial blessing of cops who make things up after the fact to justify an arrest that has already taken place.

That’s literally what happened here. Mason Murphy was walking down a Missouri road when he was accosted by Officer Michael Schmitt. From the opening of this very unfortunate decision [PDF]:

Schmitt stopped his car, approached Murphy, and asked Murphy to identify himself. Murphy refused to identify himself, and Schmitt put Murphy in handcuffs after nine minutes of argument. Murphy asked why Schmitt arrested him, and Schmitt refused to answer.

So far, it would appear no criminal act was committed and that the cuffing of Murphy by Schmitt was in retaliation for Murphy’s refusal to identify himself and, First Amendment-wise, his refusal to shut up.

  • PostmodernPythia@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    Garbage collectors are way more likely to die on the job than cops, and they don’t shoot innocent people on the regular. Peddle your false equivalencies elsewhere.

    Plus, unless you’re a complete fool, you know perfectly well that a good percentage of people saying “police are the enemy” are using that as shorthand for “policing as it exists in the US today makes the police the enemy.”

    Plus, most people aren’t willing to uproot their lives for a single political belief (assuming they can afford to), so I don’t see why you’re holding this group of people to a higher standard.

    • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      they don’t shoot innocent people on the regular

      What percentage of police shoot an innocent person in any given decade that they’re on the force? I would be interested in the answer to this question.

      policing as it exists in the US today makes the police the enemy

      So, being antagonistic to any individual cop when you interact with them is going to make this situation worse? Or better?

      That’s what strikes me as so childish about the whole thing. If the statement was “Obviously we need to have police, but there are systemic problems with the way policing is done in the United States today, and we need to do X, Y, and Z in order to improve it,” then there’s a pretty good chance I’d 100% agree with it. That’s productive. Saying police are the enemy and always have been, and so implying that it’s reasonable to be a dick to any individual cop and try to make the interaction as painful as possible, just seems way counterproductive to anything that’ll actually improve anything.