Charges Dismissed Against Woman Who Screamed Profanities at Overflowing Toilet:
I was pleased to learn, in light of my blog post urging the Pennsylvania courts to "Free Dawn Herb!", that the trial court did just that. Thanks to Howard for the link.
...with the purchase of another Mumia of equal or greater value.
Limited time offer, void where taxed or prohibited.
The thirteenth amendment has an exception for "punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted," so prohibition isn't the greatest concern, and the time of the offer has been depressingly unlimited--it's been twenty-six years, and supplies have not yet run out.
now THIS is a case of STUPID force (not quite the same thing as excessive force)
Sue everyone, God will know His own. ;^)
Out of curiosity, in terms of discharging their duties, are cops ever "off-duty?" My father was a cop for quite a few years, and I know for a fact he witnessed criminal acts when "off-duty" and arrested the perpetrator (at least that's how I recall it). If they're in their jurisdiction but "off-duty," don't they still have their full police powers?
Will someone pleeeeeease think of the toilets???
we recently had an officer shoot and kill somebody who was robbing somebody at gunpoint in seattle. he was considered "on duty" at the time he identified himself as a police officer, and certainly praised for his action.
but in general, when it comes to "annoyance" and "quality of life" incidents, most agencies encourage their cops to look the other way and move on.
unfortunately, due to our litigious society, most cops when viewing your average property crime off duty (mail theft, auto theft, etc.) have an incentive not to do anything to intervene. i personally know more than one who when witnessing such crimes off duty did absolutely nothing because they figured they didn't want the hassle of being investigated etc. for taking any action.
true. also note that in many jurisdictions, a civilian has generally BROADER discretion in deadly force (for self defense and defense of others) than a cop does.
a (off-duty) cop at home in his residence, defending his home would thus ( i believe) be judged by the civilian standard of deadly force (looser in WA state than the officer standard). i asked my dept. legal advisor about this very issue several years ago, and it has never been specifically tested fwiw.
And in practice, if the use of force or arrest seems reasonable, juries tend to acquit either, on a theory that criminals are best arrested or, if bad, killed. If burglars, "he needed killing" is an absolute defense, whether written in the statutes or not.
That said, busting a person for screaming at an overflowing toilet suggests that someone had no judgment at all. There are times and places where, while disorderly conduct is broadly defined, "it just needed cussing at" is an absolute defense.
true almost everywhere. for example, in all jurisdictions, cops can arrest based on probable cause, whereas in most if not all places, civilians need to actually witness the offense.
cops also have way more liability protection in arrest situations.
" and *slightly* less power to use deadly force (slightly, because LEOs have somewhat greater in the case of an escaping prisoner, otherwise the same)."
in WA, citizens have more leeway in deadly force in general, but i was specifically excepting the escapee thing, but just referring to proteciton of life, etc.
citizens have broader justification in firing for defense of self/others than cops do, in WA