uh oh, lawyer arrested for chanting, "i hate the police", and allegedly called the f word

[Anonymous]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/29/disorderly-conduct-conver_n_246794.html

[Anonymous]

Yeah, bad move arresting lawyers

So over this issue. America has made progress. If you don't feel so, keep working towards it with your open-minded generosity of spirit--not by chanting dumb things at the po po. How old is he--3?

[Anonymous]

Just for the sake of precision, isn't "faggot" known as the other f-word?

[Anonymous]

What a jerk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What a jerk.

I assume you mean the lawyer. Yes, but he's providing an important service. Any police officer who illegally (and especially jerkily) takes that bait needs to be cleaned off our streets.

[Anonymous]

He used to work for me. An intelligent, interesting guy. Also a Republican, by the way.

He was obeying the law. You might not like to hear this, but it is legal to say whatever you'd like to the police. They have to exercise restraint in responding, much as I have to exercise restraint in responding to someone who says something I don't like. The police are NOT entitled to arrest someone for merely speaking, which is what Mr. Tuma made clear before they slammed him into an electrical box, called him faggot, and arrested him.

I don't think that you really want to live in a society where people's opinions are policed by heavily-armed uniformed guards. Neither does Pepin Tuma, or the two other exceptionally talented lawyers (including one former Senate Judiciary Committee counsel) who were with him when the police broke the law.

[Anonymous]

As usual, this is a one-sided piece of news. Perhpas I missed the investigation, trial and ajudication of guilt against the police officer. It is appears that your opinions regarding Mr. Tuma's allegations are most biased based on your personal history with him. BTW--I dont think Mr. Tuma's position as an attorney on the Senate Judiciary Committee grants him more credibility. FWIW, I think it takes away from his credibility if I was sitting on the jury. A bunch of scoundrels, they are.

[Anonymous]

He wrote an interesting piece for the Post, admitting what he did was "neither respectful nor smart". I give the police a lot of respect because usually they earn it, but I don't want to have to give them respect because otherwise they will tase or arrest me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080702999.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As usual, this is a one-sided piece of news. Perhpas I missed the investigation, trial and ajudication of guilt against the police officer. It is appears that your opinions regarding Mr. Tuma's allegations are most biased based on your personal history with him. BTW--I dont think Mr. Tuma's position as an attorney on the Senate Judiciary Committee grants him more credibility. FWIW, I think it takes away from his credibility if I was sitting on the jury. A bunch of scoundrels, they are.

Actually it was his friend, a witness, who worked for SJC. And you are dead wrong-- the charge was dropped because it would not stick.

I don't know why it is so hard to understand that the police can't arrest you for saying something disrespectful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As usual, this is a one-sided piece of news. Perhpas I missed the investigation, trial and ajudication of guilt against the police officer. It is appears that your opinions regarding Mr. Tuma's allegations are most biased based on your personal history with him. BTW--I dont think Mr. Tuma's position as an attorney on the Senate Judiciary Committee grants him more credibility. FWIW, I think it takes away from his credibility if I was sitting on the jury. A bunch of scoundrels, they are.

Actually it was his friend, a witness, who worked for SJC. And you are dead wrong-- the charge was dropped because it would not stick.

I don't know why it is so hard to understand that the police can't arrest you for saying something disrespectful.

Please, don't confuse them with the facts. The way it works is that whenever anyone does something deemed disrespectful to authority, then that person is at fault and s/he deserves whatever the police dish out. On the other hand, each of us individually have lots and lots of rights to make others do exactly what we think they should do or someone must pay. Go read the threads about suing UPS for intentional infliction of emotional distress for flattening a package or the thread about how employers can't pay their nanny's health insurance or bad law-type things will happen to you. Sigh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just for the sake of precision, isn't "faggot" known as the other f-word?

No, that's fat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As usual, this is a one-sided piece of news. Perhpas I missed the investigation, trial and ajudication of guilt against the police officer. It is appears that your opinions regarding Mr. Tuma's allegations are most biased based on your personal history with him. BTW--I dont think Mr. Tuma's position as an attorney on the Senate Judiciary Committee grants him more credibility. FWIW, I think it takes away from his credibility if I was sitting on the jury. A bunch of scoundrels, they are.

So you would judge him based on his position rather than on the facts of the case? Please do whatever you can to get out of jury duty.

[Anonymous]

What exacty are the facts? Yes, I have heard one story, but not the other side. The last time I heard, there are three sides to a story. The two sides delivering their version of the story and the truth, ususually some where in the middle. No, I think you should be the one to remain out of the jury box, because you have already made up your mind and rendered a guilty verdict WITHOUT all the facts. You have decided to be the prosecutor, jury and sentencing judge. And I am not a booster fan for the police or anyone else, but I do know that in this city they are damned and flamed without all the facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What exacty are the facts? Yes, I have heard one story, but not the other side. The last time I heard, there are three sides to a story. The two sides delivering their version of the story and the truth, ususually some where in the middle. No, I think you should be the one to remain out of the jury box, because you have already made up your mind and rendered a guilty verdict WITHOUT all the facts. You have decided to be the prosecutor, jury and sentencing judge. And I am not a booster fan for the police or anyone else, but I do know that in this city they are damned and flamed without all the facts.

That would be because in this city, we have seen enough police misbehavior to believe the worst of all of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As usual, this is a one-sided piece of news. Perhpas I missed the investigation, trial and ajudication of guilt against the police officer. It is appears that your opinions regarding Mr. Tuma's allegations are most biased based on your personal history with him. BTW--I dont think Mr. Tuma's position as an attorney on the Senate Judiciary Committee grants him more credibility. FWIW, I think it takes away from his credibility if I was sitting on the jury. A bunch of scoundrels, they are.

Actually it was his friend, a witness, who worked for SJC. And you are dead wrong-- the charge was dropped because it would not stick.

I don't know why it is so hard to understand that the police can't arrest you for saying something disrespectful.

Anyone who goes out and taunts anyone like that needs to go and get some serious psychological help. What a complete jackass.