Posted on 07/11/2021 4:23:17 PM PDT by Kaslin
In yet another strange sign of our times, an unusual arrest in Utah this week is drawing national attention. In the town of Panguitch, a police officer was making a routine traffic stop at a gas station. While talking to the motorist, the police officer observed a 19-year-old woman holding a “back the blue” sign in the parking lot. The woman threw the sign on the ground and stomped on it. She then picked it up, wadded it into a ball and threw it in the trash, all while “smirking in an intimidating fashion” at the officer.
The woman was questioned and arrested. She’s now been charged with criminal mischief with a hate crime enhancement, as well as disorderly conduct. The Salt Lake Tribune reports on the officer’s account of the incident.
“Due to [the woman] destroying property that did not belong to her in a manner to attempt to intimidate law enforcement, I placed her under arrest,” the affidavit says.According to the affidavit, the allegations are being treated as a “hate crime enhanced allegation” due to “the demeanor displayed by [the woman] in attempts to intimidate law enforcement while destroying a ‘Pro Law Enforcement’ sign.”
While I remain a firm supporter of the Thin Blue Line, this entire incident is just peculiar, particularly when we see that the woman is facing a “hate crime” charge. The cop says that the woman was “evasive” about where she obtained the sign, eventually saying that she simply found it laying on the ground. That makes the entire “destruction of property” charge rather weak tea. And while I think law enforcement should be shown the proper amount of respect, saying unpopular or even offensive things (or physically acting out as she did) is still considered free speech.
The fact that this incident of admittedly rude behavior has now expanded into a hate-crime charge should give the most frequent accusers of such “crimes” on racial or gender grounds pause. At Reason, C.J. Ciaramella makes the point that these laws have become a two-way street, where almost anyone (including the police) can make such claims against people simply for saying something the listener finds disagreeable.
As Reason‘s Robby Soave wrote, such prosecutions are “good evidence that we ought to be skeptical of hate crime laws. Although intended to protect the underprivileged from bigotry and racism, they often permit the government to quell speech that is critical of authority.”It’s not just hate crime laws, though. Police have employed a wide variety of laws against people exercising their protected First Amendment rights. Take for example the San Diego Police Department, which issued more than 80 tickets over the last decade for “seditious language” under an unconstitutional World War I–era law. The Voice of San Diego reported that the majority of the tickets were issued to minorities for allegedly using vulgarities.
That’s a rather mild assessment in my opinion. We need to be far more than “skeptical” of all of these hate crime laws. And contra Robby Soave, we don’t pass laws to protect a certain group of people. They are in place to protect everyone, not just “the underprivileged” or any favored political demographic.
Underlying all of this is the fact that “hate crime” laws are thought crime laws. The government isn’t supposed to be able to regulate what you are thinking or even what you are saying except under the most limited and extreme circumstances. You are allowed to think or even say hurtful things about people for whatever reason you may have. It’s your actions that matter and whether or not you are causing harm to persons or property.
If that young woman hates the cops, she’s certainly not the type of person I would want to hang around with and I would clearly question her attitude and rationality. But I would also defend her right to express her opinions. If you want to give her a ticket for littering or destroying someone else’s piece of cardboard (assuming you can identify the owner who suffered the loss of it), then go for it. The law is the law, after all. But if “smirking in an intimidating fashion” is now an actionable offense, our civil rights have decayed far more than even I had previously feared.
Well, I bet she sure changed her mind and now loves the blue.
“smirking in an intimidating fashion”
I can’t quite wrap my head around that. A phrase like that coming into existence is proof that we are in unserious times.
“The cop says that the woman was “evasive” about where she obtained the sign, eventually saying that she simply found it laying on the ground. That makes the entire “destruction of property” charge rather weak tea. “
BLM: You heard the officer. Let’s go destroy some real property!
If it was not her sign and the owner wanted to be a victim....I could see a misdemeanor property destruction charge.
I have had much worse said and done to me....I just smile and tell them “Have a blessed day”
“A phrase like that coming into existence is .............”
Thats funny.my mother ustah tell me wipe the smirk off your face or I will wipe it off”
Hardley new vernacular
It’s not my sign.
” attempts to intimidate law enforcement while destroying a ‘Pro Law Enforcement’ sign.”
I suspect there will be a Blue-Line flag burning at the police station before this is all over with.
That’s a multi-million dollar smirk right there.
Photo....
That one on the right makes me angry all over again.
I don’t need that.
I don’t mean that’s your fault. I just can’t stand him.
Smirking in an intimidating manner
She was asking for it. She stole the sign and was trying to provoke him. It worked.
Blue Lives Matter.
Having said this, I disagree with this arrest.
The left has brought this to the mainstream. Shoe is on the other foot now and they don’t like it. Well that’s too bad. Maybe they should reel their side in now.
Dissing LEO's is a growing phenomenon so be very careful of what you are supporting.....
All my life I have lived in communities where there are good cops. And why is that? It’s because I have lived in good communities.
Cops are just a representation of the people they serve. If you have bad cops, you live in a bad community. If you live in a bad community, you are more likely to vote for bad people. I.e. Democrats.
That’s kind of the opposite. The smirker was being threatened. That makes sense. I doubt that your mother thought that your smirk was intimidating. My mother didn’t seem to think mine was, much less my father.
No, it’s really not. Try expressing your opinion in the U.S. Capitol.
Pretty simplistic, and wrong, way of looking at it.
We have some bad senior military officers too - does that mean we live in a bad country?
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.