Well, this is a bit of a doozy. This case — via the Institute for Justice — involves a possible First Amendment violation but somehow ends with a judicial blessing of cops who make things up after the fact to justify an arrest that has already taken place.

That’s literally what happened here. Mason Murphy was walking down a Missouri road when he was accosted by Officer Michael Schmitt. From the opening of this very unfortunate decision [PDF]:

Schmitt stopped his car, approached Murphy, and asked Murphy to identify himself. Murphy refused to identify himself, and Schmitt put Murphy in handcuffs after nine minutes of argument. Murphy asked why Schmitt arrested him, and Schmitt refused to answer.

So far, it would appear no criminal act was committed and that the cuffing of Murphy by Schmitt was in retaliation for Murphy’s refusal to identify himself and, First Amendment-wise, his refusal to shut up.

  • SoylentBlake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Alright I gotchu. We good.

    And if anybody is looking for stochastic inspiration his name is Phillip Brailsford. He killed an innocent man, Daniel Shaver, who was pleading for his life. Daniel was guilty of leaving his hotel room to get ice from the hall machine.

    This motherfucking murderer, Brailsford, and his enablers/protectors at the precinct had the audacity to claim PTSD from the shooting and then take a medical retirement and get 30k/yr untaxed, for the rest of his life.

    He callously murders and then we get to pay him in perpetuity for the honor?

    This is what the force has become. Infested and infiltrated with immoral evil serial killers.

    If you gotta, I’m just saying, this wrong could be righted. Karmic scales can be balanced.

    If ya gotta go, go out with a bang.

    • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Bro that wasn’t at all what I was saying. I was talking about criminal penalties. I get it and it’s a fucking tragedy everything Brailsford did and the system’s response from top to bottom. But:

      The problem is that people can be violent with no repercussions, and we need a system that enforces actual justice, because the system doesn’t do justice. 100% that’s an urgent problem, I agree 100%. Now we’re gonna fix the problem by adding more violence and less system.

      Oh no now there’s more violence and less justice! And the system that enforces justice is even weaker.

      How could this have happened

      • SoylentBlake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Everything after that first sentence was tongue in cheek explanation for context and was directed towards anyone else reading it.

        Not to you amigo, sorry if that wasn’t clear. It’s hard to keep up with all the abortions of justice (the only abortions conservatives want!).