From: Michael S. Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Tue Dec 12 2000 - 13:28:37 MST
Chris Russo wrote:
>
> At 10:56 -0500 12/12/00, Michael S. Lorrey wrote:
> >I could do some research, but off the top of my head there was a case
> >across the river in White River Junction, VT just a couple months ago
> >where a black police officer was called n_____ by a drunk woman he
> >arrested for D&D. At the station he also pressed charges for a hate
> >crime, and won in court over her innocent plea.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't being verbally insulting to a
> police officer going to get you some kind of verbal assault charge
> anyway, in most places? The hate crime part is just an add-on for
> discrimination aggravated circumstances, right?
No, you can't be charged with anything for speaking your mind to a
police officer, so long as you did not threaten him. Only speech which
threatens can be considered verbal assault, as in "I'm gonna lynch you,
n____".
However, in my experience vermont cops do tend to go overboard. A few
years ago a Vermont State Trooper was eating breakfast at Denny's in
West Lebanon, New Hampshire, and the cook put tobasco sauce in his
scrambled eggs. The cop arrested him and charged him with assault and
battery. The guy got off claiming orders got mixed up.
>
> >The woman insisted she
> >never used such language when sober and did not conciously intend to use
> >that epithet. Given that drugs like alcohol act to suppress the ego and
> >allow the id more liberties (i.e. reduces inhibitions) this is as close
> >to a thought crime as I think it is possible to go.
>
> Please please please don't in any remotely conceivable way imply that
> people should have less responsibility for their actions after
> they've *voluntarily* surrendered their rationality to mind-altering
> substances.
>
> The increasingly staunch Libertarian in me wants to be allowed to do
> with my own body whatever I choose. I'll never be given that freedom
> if others assume that I won't expect to be held responsible if I
> abuse that freedom.
While you have a point here, there is still a distinct difference in
that the conduct was not willful, not something they would normally do.
While intentionally running someone down with your car while sober will
get you murder charges, doing so unintentionally while drunk will get
you negligent homicide or manslaughter charges.
How many of us have said things, even sober, we did not intend, or did
not intend maliciously. Possibly to an ex spouse, sibling, parent, etc.
in the heat of the moment? Should you get 6 months in prison and a $5000
fine for each instance? I don't think so.
>
> >Its tantamount to
> >putting a right wing republican under the influence of sodium pentathol
> >and asking them if they'd like to off Pres. Clinton if given the
> >opportunity, then charging them with violation of federal law.
>
> Forcibly taking away someone's rationality and then punishing them
> for breaking the law under that coercion is light years away from
> "tantamount" to the situation you described previously.
The taking away rationality is not the point. Just as any speech made
before one's Miranda Rights have been read is not admissible as
confession evidence, one's extemporaneous everyday speech should not
have to be guarded like one lives in a police state. If there are laws
that create such an atmosphere, guess what? You live in a police state.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:32:20 MST