But did they call America Nazi Germany? By the way, you went through a lot of work for my post which wasn't the most serious one I've ever made. :^)
The point being made by many posters is that there is a fairly narrow, but well-defined boundary between proper police protocols, and police abuse. When the police (be they local, state or federal) overstep their bounds (for instance, at Waco and at Ruby Ridge) you see the spector of something not too different from the authoritarian European states of the 1930's and 1940's. Whether you call them jack-booted nazi thugs, or jack-booted fascist thugs makes little difference.
The people at Waco and Ruby Ridge were keeping to themselves. This guy was breaking the law in public infringing on his fellow citizen's peace. The police had to immediately make the man cease and desist, unlike in Waco and Ruby Ridge.
I responded to a comment that suggested in some locale the police would just "take care of the problem" (or something like that) - the suggestion being that they would not be bound by legal or Constitutional requirements ... they would be a law unto themselves.
On a disturbing the peace complaint, I believe that the police have the right to end this criminal activity. To tie up a department questioning each other whether they can stop him or not from disturbing the peace is stupid. I believe it's OK to act in a situation of a petty complaint where there are ambiguities. 999,999 out of a million, no one will get hurt. This guy was just a murderer waiting for his chance. I hope he fries. (I guess I'm just your friendly neighborhood jack-booted thug. LOL)
In my book, that's Nazi-ism. I hope I explained it a little bit better. I meant no personal offense.
[sarcasm on]Don't mention it. It doesn't offend me at all to be called a murdering Nazi over a trivial matter like a noise complaint. [sarcasm off] America is Nazi Germany because of the ambiguous suppression of people who make too much noisse in residential neighborhoods?
This guy was breaking the law in public infringing on his fellow citizen's peace. The police had to immediately make the man cease and desist ... I'm not totally clear from the article what, exactly, Frank Zito was doing, but from other posts on the threads, it sounds as if he was talking to himself. It also sounds like his mother called the police, on the pretext of disturbing the peace, to get him yet another psych eval. I disagree that the police "had to immediately make the man cease and desist." After all, it's not against the law to be a nut!
"On a disturbing the peace complaint, I believe that the police have the right to end this criminal activity." A "complaint" in and of itself does not mean a law was being broken, or had been broken. In college I had a party one evening in my apartment. Some very studious neighbors called the campus police who knocked on my door. I saw them through the peep hole and talked to them through the door. They said there was a noise complaint. I asked what time it was, and assured them the music would go off before 10 p.m. - which it did. They hung around for a while, but there wasn't much they could do - I was within my rights too!
This guy was just a murderer ... IF his acts were premeditated; IF the police acted within the law, and ;IF he had the capacity to make a rationale judgment, you may be right. Thanks for the discussion.