Posted on 02/04/2005 4:12:55 PM PST by neverdem
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 6:42 p.m. ET
PITTSBURGH (AP) -- A man says a traffic ticket a state trooper gave him is for the birds -- or at least for flipping the bird. Stephen Corey, 42, filed a federal lawsuit because he says he had a First Amendment right to flip his middle finger at the trooper in July.
Trooper Samuel Nassan III gave Corey, a flight attendant from Pittsburgh, a ticket for following another vehicle too closely, then wrote him up for giving ``an improper hand signal while passing my patrol car, namely middle finger up,'' according to Corey's lawsuit.
Corey's attorney, Joel Dresbold, denies Corey made the gesture. But he said it also doesn't matter because Nassan filed the ticket as though Corey committed a motor vehicle violation -- that Corey made an illegal turn signal using his hand.
``It really doesn't matter if he did it or not,'' Dresbold said. ``Either way it's an abuse of his constitutional rights. It's lawful under the Constitution to (give the middle finger), and you can't give a ticket for doing that.''
State police spokesman Jack Lewis declined to comment on the suit, which also names the state police for allegedly failing to train its troopers properly.
Nassan chuckled when told of the lawsuit -- but said the ticket was proper because he said Corey gave him the finger as part of a gesture that indicated he was changing lanes, making it an improper turn signal. Nassan also acknowledged that Corey has a right to give him the finger under some circumstances.
``Absolutely, he has a right to shoot his middle finger at me unless it's in plain view of the motoring public,'' Nassan said.
They aren't selected, they volunteer for the job.
Including your own protection in circumstances.
The Supreme Court has ruled that they have no obligation to protect me, only 'society' as a whole and that usually entails arrest after the crime and not putting themselves between me and the bad guy.
They are entitled to the same standards of dignity and respect as any of us - and even more so because, yes, they put their lives on the line day after day.
Granted, but each of us are subject to rude people everyday. It isn't a crime to be disrespecful. Do you want George Bush and Bill Clinton to be exempted by law from name calling 'to protect them' from insults? Are you ever rude to convenience store clerks? I think that more of them are killed each year than police officers.
You cannot expect youth to respect parents and teachers when an o.k. is given to casually and deliberately show disrespect to law enforcement persons through obscene gestures.
Teach 'em, yeah. Enforce it by penalty of law? NO! Law enforcement also needs to know that the public they work for also deserves respect.
One reason for statutory restrictions on freedom of speech - and symbols thereof such as gestures - is that some words and associated symbols constitute, under law, "fighting words." Like some punk giving the finger to your wife right in front of you.
Are you suggesting that it's illegal for a punk to give my wife the finger? Stupid maybe, but not illegal. I may react to that as a private citizen and my reaction may or may not be wise or legal. But why should a cop or politician be off limits to expressions or anger or derision? Why should a cop be allowed to bring the weight of the justice system down on you for a personal remark?
If you look at this as only free speech, then that's your problem.
My problem is the pols, the police, and judges violating and ignoring the rights of 'we the people'. We are the sovereign. We delegate authority to them. If I can't write you a ticket for flipping me off, why should they be able to. Have you forgotten who's boss?
I agree with you Badray.....
If burning a flag is protected "speech," the flipping the bird is also protected speech.
The caselaw in the area of the duty owed by a policeman to the public at large is quite clear: The police owe you no duty of protection UNLESS they've undertaken a special type of relationship with you, like entering you into the witness protection program, etc. Common, everyday taxpayers, absent that special relationship, cannot sue when the police department fails to protect from rape, robbery, murder, etc.
There should be a chicken in every pot and a Kimber in every kitchen.....that's the only way to protect yourself.
And both should remain so. I would argue that it won't be long from outlawing flag burning til it's illegal to talk bad about politicians. Oh, it already is since passage of McCain Feingold Camfpaign Finance Reform.
There should be a chicken in every pot and a Kimber in every kitchen.....that's the only way to protect yourself.
How about a H&K on the hip or a Colt in the car? LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.