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.

  • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I mean… what it looks like to me from a first reading is that they arrested him because he was being a dick and refusing to ID and being combative with the cops. It’s not like they just put him in some kind of no-win Daniel Shaver bind where no matter what he did he was going to go to jail.

    Was it illegal for him to do that? No (this crappy 8th circuit decision notwithstanding). Should they have arrested him for it? No. Is it appropriate for the officers involved to get some sort of consequence because they let him get under their skin and retaliated in an illegal fashion? Yes.

    Is this the kind of thing that happens sometimes when you’re a dick to some other human being in the world, even if you are within your rights to do so? Yuuuup.

    • Silverseren@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      In my opinion, everyone has no reason to be polite and respectful with cops. They don’t deserve it. Their entire history (from the beginning) has been as enemies to the general public.

      • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re free to find some unincorporated land somewhere and some like-minded people, and run the place with no cops. Should be a big improvement yes?

    • SoylentBlake@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s fucked up you bring up Daniel Shaver and your outcome is going to jail and not being murdered like he was.

      You couldn’t just kneejerk your cop jerk off without trying to whitewash his name?

      GTFO of here with your copaganda. ACAB. The only good cops got fired for telling the truth. ‘Decent’ cops keep their mouths shut about the internal criminal behavior they see; complicity means consent, which makes them just as bad. There is no middle ground.

      If cops act criminal they should be treated like criminals, full stop. Violating constitutional rights, as a member of government, is criminal.

    • Staccato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re not wrong in your assessment, but part of the point of holding your government to account is that you hold the institution to a higher standard than the individuals it governs.

      That doesn’t show through in your write-up at all.