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.

  • SoylentBlake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    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.

    • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      I wasn’t trying to be flippant about Daniel Shaver getting murdered. I was trying to make the point of what a huge gulf there was between what happened to him and what happened here. If it sounded like I was being casual about the wrongness of that instance, then I apologize; that wasn’t the intent at all and I think I was a little careless about how I brought up his name, yes.

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

      You think that I was bringing up Daniel Shaver as a way to… make the police look better? Because I’m obviously a malicious apologist?

      I’m fully in agreement with you as to what should happen when a cop does something criminal. We’re definitely going to disagree on some things, but on that I can assure you we agree.

      • SoylentBlake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Alright I gotchu. We good.

        And if anybody is looking for stochastic inspiration his name is Phillip Brailsford. He killed an innocent man, Daniel Shaver, who was pleading for his life. Daniel was guilty of leaving his hotel room to get ice from the hall machine.

        This motherfucking murderer, Brailsford, and his enablers/protectors at the precinct had the audacity to claim PTSD from the shooting and then take a medical retirement and get 30k/yr untaxed, for the rest of his life.

        He callously murders and then we get to pay him in perpetuity for the honor?

        This is what the force has become. Infested and infiltrated with immoral evil serial killers.

        If you gotta, I’m just saying, this wrong could be righted. Karmic scales can be balanced.

        If ya gotta go, go out with a bang.

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

          Bro that wasn’t at all what I was saying. I was talking about criminal penalties. I get it and it’s a fucking tragedy everything Brailsford did and the system’s response from top to bottom. But:

          The problem is that people can be violent with no repercussions, and we need a system that enforces actual justice, because the system doesn’t do justice. 100% that’s an urgent problem, I agree 100%. Now we’re gonna fix the problem by adding more violence and less system.

          Oh no now there’s more violence and less justice! And the system that enforces justice is even weaker.

          How could this have happened

          • SoylentBlake
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Everything after that first sentence was tongue in cheek explanation for context and was directed towards anyone else reading it.

            Not to you amigo, sorry if that wasn’t clear. It’s hard to keep up with all the abortions of justice (the only abortions conservatives want!).