Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Editorial: Watching is a crime?(PA)
salisburypost.com ^ | 26 August, 2010 | Staff

Posted on 08/28/2010 5:41:46 AM PDT by marktwain

The resisting-arrest conviction last week of Felicia Gibson has left a lot of people wondering. Can a person be charged with resisting arrest while observing a traffic stop from his or her own front porch?

Salisbury Police Officer Mark Hunter thought so, and last week District Court Judge Beth Dixon agreed. Because Gibson did not at first comply when the officer told her and others to go inside, the judge found Gibson guilty of resisting, delaying or obstructing an officer.

Gibson was not the only bystander watching the action on the street. She was the only one holding up a cell-phone video camera. But court testimony never indicated that Hunter told her to stop the camera; he just told her to go inside.

Asked to explain the charge of resisting arrest, Salisbury Police Chief Rorie Collins provided general comments. He was not discussing the specifics of the Gibson case.

Post: What is “resisting arrest” or “resist, delay, obstruct an officer” in the performance of his/her duties?

Collins: “These are basically the same charge. Some call the charge simply “resisting arrest,” and some call it by its longer and more official title. This crime can be found in the North Carolina General Statutes under chapter 14, subsection 223 (G.S. 14-223).

“This crime is considered a Class 2 misdemeanor and involves:

“Any person who shall willfully and unlawfully resist, delay, or obstruct a public officer in discharging or attempting to discharge a duty of his office.

“Obviously, this charge is rather broad and can encompass many different types of actions that are designed to, or serves to hinder a law enforcement officer as he/she performs their duties.

“This charge is most commonly used in situations where a person who is being arrested refuses to cooperate and either passively or aggressively resists an arrest or tries to run away.

“Another very common situation in which this charge is used involves instances when an officer is conducting an investigation and the individuals with whom he/she is dealing provide a false identity when required to identify themselves.

“As you can imagine, there are also many other circumstances in which this charge would be appropriate.”

Post: If the police stop someone in a car in front of my house, do I have the right to stand in my yard or on my porch and watch?

Collins: “The answer to this question is not quite as clear cut as the first. The short and quick answer is, ‘yes,’ in general, you do have that right!

“However, just as with many other scenarios, it is important to remember that every situation is based upon its own merits/circumstances. There are some circumstances in which the police who have stopped the vehicle in front of your house may determine that it is in the interest of safety (the officer’s, yours or the individual stopped) to require that folks move. As with other circumstances, it is best advised that an individual merely obey by the officer’s commands.”

To draw our own conclusions, Hunter could have felt that he, the bystanders or the suspects were in danger that night on West Fisher Street. No problem there. But concerns about safety do not explain why Gibson was singled out for arrest. That lingering question will have even the most law-abiding citizens wondering where their rights stop and police authority starts.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: banglist; beserkcop; donutwatch; dumbcops; pa; police; rights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-164 next last
To: Mojave
The citizen who was convicted?

Yes, she was convicted by a corrupt judge for doing nothing wrong. Laws can be enacted for any purpose. Many laws have been passed for evil purposes. Do you support such laws? That one may have a useful intent. If so, it was stretched way out of shape by the local government. That officer abused his authority. He was backed up by the vile prosecutor and a judge who really should be himself remanded to a rock hockey club. Following the law when the law is wrong is as bad as just following orders and should be as little of an excuse.

101 posted on 08/28/2010 9:43:08 AM PDT by magslinger (DISCLAIMER: No liberals were harmed in the making of this post. I'm sorry and will try harder.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Wiser now

“Sounds to me like she was hoping to film some “police brutality”. She had no other reason to film the incident, and in so doing, she was harassing the police officer.”

And if there was no police brutality, the cops had nothing to fear from this old woman. Small wonder they were afraid to let a jury try this case.


102 posted on 08/28/2010 9:45:02 AM PDT by BlazingArizona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Why was the order lawful?

It was made pursuant to law. The matter was tried in court. She was convicted.

Or are you asking why we should have laws?

103 posted on 08/28/2010 9:45:28 AM PDT by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
It should always be legal to video or audio record public officials in the performance of their public duties.

Police have no expectation of “privacy” while operating in public. To claim otherwise is to descend into a Putin like police state.

Amen.  If there are going to be cameras everywhere, having some in the hands of the People is quite proper and necessary especially given the scope of powers claimed by the state these days.

104 posted on 08/28/2010 9:46:32 AM PDT by zeugma (Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: magslinger
she was convicted by a corrupt judge

A "fact" not in evidence.

Many laws have been passed for evil purposes.

Not this one.

105 posted on 08/28/2010 9:47:30 AM PDT by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
You determined that she had committed an "illegal act" because she had been convicted. In other words, her conviction made the act illegal. And she would not have been convicted had the act not been illegal. The act of conviction determines the illegality and the illegality derives the conviction.

One more time ...

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

106 posted on 08/28/2010 9:50:24 AM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: BlazingArizona
And if there was no police brutality, the cops had nothing to fear from this old woman.

The police neglected to use their x-ray vision and crystal balls to determine that.

107 posted on 08/28/2010 9:50:37 AM PDT by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
You determined that she had committed an "illegal act" because she had been convicted.

Convicted of that specific illegal act.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

The two events were not unrelated. Her conviction was in consequence of her illegal act. Post hoc ergo propter hoc refers to a coincidental correlation. This was causal.

Just because you can copy and paste a Latin term doesn't mean you comprehend its meaning.

108 posted on 08/28/2010 9:56:13 AM PDT by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
If a law were passed that stripped all red heads of their citizenship, property and all rights and made red heads subject to arrest would you figure "It's the law, it must be right?"

Your supporting the arrest and conviction of this poor woman for doing no harm to anyone other than disrespecting the authority of one jump booted thug makes you one scary dude!

109 posted on 08/28/2010 10:02:36 AM PDT by magslinger (DISCLAIMER: No liberals were harmed in the making of this post. I'm sorry and will try harder.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: magslinger
If a law were passed that stripped all red heads of their citizenship

It wouldn't withstand Constitutional scrutiny. Obstruction laws have.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

110 posted on 08/28/2010 10:08:37 AM PDT by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
>>Why was the order lawful?
>
>It was made pursuant to law. The matter was tried in court. She was convicted.

Ok then, smart-arse; try this legal conundrum on for size:

New Mexico State Constitution
Article II, Sec 6
Nem Mexico State Statute 30-7-2.4.
Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises; notice; penalty.
[Right to bear arms.]

No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.)

A.     Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises consists of carrying a firearm on university premises except by:
     (1)     a peace officer;
     (2)     university security personnel;
     (3)     a student, instructor or other university-authorized personnel who are engaged in army, navy, marine corps or air force reserve officer training corps programs or a state-authorized hunter safety training program;
     (4)     a person conducting or participating in a university-approved program, class or other activity involving the carrying of a firearm; or
     (5)     a person older than nineteen years of age on university premises in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance, for lawful protection of the person's or another's person or property.

B.     A university shall conspicuously post notices on university premises that state that it is unlawful to carry a firearm on university premises.

C.     As used in this section:
     (1)     "university" means a baccalaureate degree-granting post-secondary educational institution, a community college, a branch community college, a technical-vocational institute and an area vocational school; and
     (2)     "university premises" means:
          (a)     the buildings and grounds of a university, including playing fields and parking areas of a university, in or on which university or university-related activities are conducted; or
          (b)     any other public buildings or grounds, including playing fields and parking areas that are not university property, in or on which university-related and sanctioned activities are performed.

D.     Whoever commits unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.

If I were to open carry on campus, would it be a violation of the law? Why or why not?
If an officer were to arrest me for it, would it be a valid arrest? Why or why not?
If at least two officer were involved in arresting and booking me, then would I be justified in pressing criminal charges* against them?
Considering that the State Constitution says "No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms", would it be legal for me to walk into a city or county courthouse that has posted No Weapons while openly carrying? Why or why not?
If I was arrested for violating the No Weapons posting on the City/County courthouses, would I be justified in perusing criminal charges against the officers and/or court officials? Why or why not?

*US CODE, TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 13, § 241
Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Note: For all intents and purposes a false arrest is kidnapping.

I await your answers.

111 posted on 08/28/2010 10:18:07 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

What legal conundrum is that?

(BTW, you’re in the wrong state.)


112 posted on 08/28/2010 10:33:09 AM PDT by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
It wouldn't withstand Constitutional scrutiny. Obstruction laws have.

She was convicted of obstruction.

What is unclear is (not described by the news, court or you) the details of how was this lady obstructing the officer.

The FACT is that she was far enough away from the scene that the officer had to use a megaphone to order her inside her house, so that precludes physical obstruction.

So, I ask you, since you are defending this conviction, what are the details of her obstruction.

113 posted on 08/28/2010 10:38:19 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Too many conservatives urge retreat when the war of politics doesn't go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

>What legal conundrum is that?

My State Constitution forbids laws which abridge the right of the citizen “to keep and bear arms for security and defense,” yet there is a state statute that forbids firearms on university campuses; see my previous post for the exact wordings. — How can that be legal?

There is also the one where the counties & municipalities are forbidden from “regulat[ing], in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms;” yet City & County Courthouses both have posted “No Weapons” — How can that be legal?

Anyway, I would like to hear your answers to the questions presented in Post #111; they’re between the texts for the state constitution/statute and the USC 241.


114 posted on 08/28/2010 10:45:52 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
She was convicted of obstruction.

Right. She obstructed the officer's attempt to clear and secure area by refusing multiple requests to withdraw.

115 posted on 08/28/2010 10:46:44 AM PDT by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
My State Constitution forbids laws which abridge the right of the citizen “to keep and bear arms for security and defense,” yet there is a state statute that forbids firearms on university campuses; see my previous post for the exact wordings.

The state constitution says for "lawful purposes." Unlawful possession on university premises is prohibited, with the several recognized lawful purpose exceptions explicitly spelled out.

So where's this "conundrum"?

116 posted on 08/28/2010 10:52:40 AM PDT by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

It says “AND OTHER lawful purposes.” The “and” is obviously the English-language list/last-item connector.
The VERY FIRST item on that list is that of “security and defense.”

The statute obviously infringes on the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for defense; or can you guarantee that no citizen will be housed on campus grounds?
The statute obviously abridges the right of the citizen to hunt on university grounds, as well as recreational shooting.

If you take the “other lawful purposes” as a catch-all qualifier then you could ban guns altogether — regardless of the citizen’s right to security and defense — because the ban would make the usage and/or ownership of those arms illegal... and therefore not protected by the Constitution’s Right to Keep and Bear Arms section.


117 posted on 08/28/2010 11:00:31 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
The law sets conditions on the time, place and manner of "self defense." University premises are among those places regulated. Apparently "lawful" doesn't mean in accordance with law to you.

"Wants what he wants when he wants it -- and thinks that constitutes a natural law." --Robert Heinlein

118 posted on 08/28/2010 11:16:23 AM PDT by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

>Unlawful possession on university premises is prohibited, with the several recognized lawful purpose exceptions explicitly spelled out.

PS — If you want to get into the minutia of the details, one of the exceptions in that law is firearms in a “private conveyance;”

Ditionary.com defines conveyance as:
1. — the act of conveying; transmission; communication.
2. — a means of transporting, esp. a vehicle, as a bus, airplane, or automobile.
3. — Law.
a. - the transfer of property from one person to another.
b. - the instrument or document by which this is effected.

It is obvious by usage that Definition #2 is what meant in the statute; it i the only reading that makes sense.
Dictionary.com defines holster as:
1. — a sheath-like carrying case for a firearm, attached to a belt, shoulder sling, or saddle.

Now, it is obvious that a carrying case is a conveyance.
So I should, therefore, be able to open carry on campus, no?


119 posted on 08/28/2010 11:18:18 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

Alright, how about the [city/county] courts barring weapons?
The state Constitution says: “No county or municipality shall regulate, IN ANY WAY, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.”

How then can the city & county courts legally bar weapons?


120 posted on 08/28/2010 11:20:32 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-164 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson