I disapprove of what this cop did, but I don't really see anything in the Constitution that prevents cops from saying insulting things.
The New York Post also mentioned Genovese “was armed to the teeth with a licensed assault rifle.” The description is very misleading since the police only found one rifle in her car
How many rifles do you have to carry to be "armed to the teeth?" How many can you shoot at one time?
Even Breitbart gets this wrong. The Post claim is not only misleading but false unless she was transporting a legal fully auto rifle. Since that's pretty unlikely, what he should have said was she was armed to the teeth with a licensed "assault weapon."
The term has, at most, a legal meaning in the state of NY, but at least it's not false.
Finally, the Post article doesn't say, but I suspect the claims of abusive language are made by Ms. Genovese and contested by the cops.
They may very well have been made, but considering all the recent accusations by leftwingers against the cops, possibly we should not automatically assume any accusation by someone on our side is necessarily the truth.
The Post and Breitbart articles, as usual, both blend together facts and assertions by one side in the case.
Sorry, just reread the article, which does use the appropriate skeptical language about her claims.
Jumping to conclusions is about the only exercise I get nowadays.
And yet they arrested her for a lawful, even innocent action. They had it in for her and that’s why I believe the comments, although it doesn’t matter to anyone if I do or not.
“I disapprove of what this cop did, but I
don’t really see anything in the
Constitution that prevents cops from
saying insulting things.”
He is acting on behalf of the state. When he degrades a citizen, the government is degrading a citizen. Any cop who can’t control himself and behave properly at all times when on duty should be fired.
Remember, he dishes out his abuse whilehiding behind a badge, making it risky to return his fire.
A cop is a representative of the Government, to wit}the Executive Branch. Everything he/she does reflects the Government’s point of view. His/her actions have the full power and authority of the Government behind them.
There’s an “or” after this, this is the applicable part to her...
“willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution”
He detained and subjected her to an illegal, warrantless, arrest under color of his authority.
I reiterate, the subject of the law is TWO parts, which is an abuse of a citizen covered by the constitution and an alien not so.
I believe that many do not pursue this exactly for the interpretation you got from it.