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

Skip to comments.

Appeals Court Rules Ohio Cops Didn't Have Cause To Arrest Man Wearing 'F—- the Police' Shirt
Reason ^ | Feb 9, 2022 | C.J. CIARAMELLA

Posted on 02/21/2022 6:00:40 AM PST by Leaning Right

The sheriff's deputies are also not entitled to qualified immunity because the First Amendment right to offend police has been repeatedly upheld.

*snip*

They eventually arrested Wood and charged him with disorderly conduct and obstruction. Prosecutors later dismissed both charges. Wood filed a civil rights lawsuit against all six sheriff's deputies, alleging false arrest and violations of his First Amendment rights.

The deputies argued that Wood's arrest was lawful under the "fighting words" doctrine established by the Supreme Court's 1942 ruling in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. That doctrine still lives on, but its application has been significantly limited over the decades.

(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; US: Ohio
KEYWORDS: donutwatch; jbt; qualifiedimmunity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last
A win for the First Amendment, I guess. But the guy sure had a foul mouth as well as a vulgar shirt.
1 posted on 02/21/2022 6:00:40 AM PST by Leaning Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right

Maybe he was just a fan of NWA?


2 posted on 02/21/2022 6:03:20 AM PST by Sarcazmo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right

So, they arrested him for resisting an unlawful arrest.


3 posted on 02/21/2022 6:03:22 AM PST by maro (MAGA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right

I do not agree with how the guy presented his message but i agree the cops were wrong. Free speech is free speech.

When we start letting nebulous intent like “fighting words” become a reason for arrest ask yourself. Who gets to define fighting words?

If it is not a direct threat the deference needs to be given to the individual, not the thuggish law enforcement agents, they will always be a hammer to a screw, all they know is overt force, it is how they are designed.


4 posted on 02/21/2022 6:07:13 AM PST by Skwor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right
the "fighting words" doctrine established by the Supreme Court's 1942 ruling referred to words used to threaten or incite violence. I don't think it applies. Nevertheless I still think the shirt was in bad taste.
5 posted on 02/21/2022 6:08:02 AM PST by Telepathic Intruder (Democracy is two dead Democrats and a Republican voting who's brains are for dinner.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right

If police get a 911 call to remove someone from a public event due to a swear word on a shirt, the subject had better be doing something actually illegal as well. If I respond to that call and the only issue is a shirt, I’m not taking any enforcement action whatsoever.


6 posted on 02/21/2022 6:08:10 AM PST by thefactor (yes, as a matter of fact, i DID only read the excerpt )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Skwor

> If it is not a direct threat the deference needs to be given to the individual... <

Right. Awhile back there was a state legislator (from Virginia?) who argued that criticizing a public official should be illegal because such criticism might possibly motivate someone to harm the public official.

No direct threat. Just a might possibly.


7 posted on 02/21/2022 6:14:02 AM PST by Leaning Right (The steal is real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Skwor

So let me get this straight. Okay, yes vulgar shirt but ..... A tee shirt says F the Police and SIX big tough LE arrest the person wearing it. Maybe if LE acted like they protect the citizens and not Jack Boot them like in Canada, nasty scarry tee shirts will go away. Thin skinned thugs.


8 posted on 02/21/2022 6:14:38 AM PST by OHPatriot (Si vis pacem, para bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right

They should just claim they are facebook, twitter or youtube fact checkers.


9 posted on 02/21/2022 6:14:48 AM PST by pas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right
"Let's Go, Brandon!"

Regards,

10 posted on 02/21/2022 6:21:59 AM PST by alexander_busek (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right

I have not gone to the website but I hope all six deputies are now unemployed. The victim of police abuse will now win the lottery in his civil suit. Too bad for the county, but their fault for who they hired.


11 posted on 02/21/2022 6:35:33 AM PST by Reno89519 (FJB. Respect America, Embrace America, Buy American, Hire American.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reno89519

> Too bad for the county, but their fault for who they hired. <

The deputies have lost their qualified immunity. So if I’m reading the story right, they will have to pay the damages out of their own pockets.


12 posted on 02/21/2022 6:37:32 AM PST by Leaning Right (The steal is real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right

Interesting case. If the or one of the SIX called the sitrep in to their supervisor, and super said arrest him, the SIX could be remain protected, but the super, not! Arguable, of course.


13 posted on 02/21/2022 7:00:19 AM PST by SgtHooper (If you remember the 60's, YOU WEREN'T THERE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right

He didn’t get arrested for his shirt he got arrested for his mouth.
Say he came up to you and your family at the fair and started calling you the things he was shouting at the Police
I guess you would just have to take it, or leave.


14 posted on 02/21/2022 7:25:42 AM PST by VicVanleeuwenhoek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VicVanleeuwenhoek

> He didn’t get arrested for his shirt he got arrested for his mouth. <

The cops showed up in the first place because of the shirt. When they realized it was just a shirt, they should have left.

But you do make a fair point about the guy’s abusive language. In my opinion, such language directed against a citizen would be disorderly conduct. But it was directed against government officials (the cops). So here the 1A must assert itself.

If abusive language against the cops can be disorderly conduct, then “Lets go Brandon!” can be disorderly conduct. It’s a slippery slope.


15 posted on 02/21/2022 7:34:36 AM PST by Leaning Right (The steal is real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right

If the cops can’t manage their precious feelings when they get insulted then they need to find another job.


16 posted on 02/21/2022 7:38:49 AM PST by MercyFlush (DANGER: You are being conditioned to view your freedom as selfish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VicVanleeuwenhoek

The recording of the police radio proved the man was solely arrested for the shirt.


17 posted on 02/21/2022 7:42:38 AM PST by MercyFlush (DANGER: You are being conditioned to view your freedom as selfish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right

I don’t know why so many people feel compelled to state their feelings with strings profanity
He could have just had a shirt on that said police are Fascist thugs.
And when they inappropriately told him to leave he should have just left.
And the cops? They had no business arresting the man. They were basically proving what he said to be correct.


18 posted on 02/21/2022 8:29:16 AM PST by ChildOfThe60s ( If you can remember the 60s.....you weren't really there..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right

“A win for the First Amendment, I guess. But the guy sure had a foul mouth as well as a vulgar shirt.”

Good thing he hadn’t yet seen the Royal Canadian Mounted Police trampling folks to death on horseback, he would have really been pissed.


19 posted on 02/21/2022 8:40:40 AM PST by Bshaw (A nefarious deceit is upon us all!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right
Depends on how the lawsuit was files. Example 1: Joe Civilian vs officer 1, officer 2, etc.

Example 2: Joe Civilian vs Officer 1, individually, severaly , collectively and in his/her offical capacity, etc.

The losing of implied immunity will cost the government agency who signs the paychecks. Depending if there are any union contract addressing circumstances like this, will determine if the thugs with badges will have to empty their wallets.

20 posted on 02/21/2022 8:54:57 AM PST by Stanwood_Dave ("Testilying." Cop's lie, only while testifying, as taught in their respected Police Academy(s). )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 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