22 ms·

Iowa man files lawsuit after being arrested twice for criticizing the police

422 points by fortran77 3y ago

PredictorX1 3y ago
[flagged]
spullara 3y ago
He'll likely win this case but I'm not sure what it will accomplish.
- jojobas 3y ago
  Theoretically, whichever elected body that appoints the police captain will look into hiring one that won't cost so much in legal fees and compensations.
  - aetherspawn 3y ago
    It's like the xkcd about competing standards, except /s/standards/ex-police captains/ https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/ You give people guns and fast cars, of course they're going to escalate whenever possible. In my opinion I don't think it matters who is the captain. edit: to back this up, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment .
    - jojobas 3y ago
      I have a gun and pretty fast a car, never in my life I've escalated anything even to a fistfight. Why can't cops be held to a standard of discipline?
      - Clubber 3y ago
        Because they don't face any repercussions for their actions. Prosecutors won't prosecute because the police are their colleagues. The police feed them cases. The other police won't do anything other than a slap on the wrist, because those same police potentially do or will do the same thing. The SCOTUS invented qualified immunity in the 60s, so they can't even be successfully sued (or it's very rare and very expensive). The reason we retain freedoms in our country to any extent is because we have checks and balances in government. The police have no checks and balances and therefore the ones who are abusive of power continue to work unabated. Really all this would be solved if we just got rid of the bad ones, but the government won't even do that. The machine protects itself.
        jojobas 3y ago
        So it's a matter of the city appointing/the voters electing better DAs? The fact that a cop can't be jailed due to qualified immunity is not directly related to the fact that he would be fired long before that for not behaving up to standards. Police is subject to checks and balances, their transgressions just don't seem to be the priority for voters.
        Clubber 3y ago
        >So it's a matter of the city appointing/the voters electing better DAs? Possibly, but they work on the same team. >a cop can't be jailed due to qualified immunity Qualified immunity protects them from getting sued directly in civil court by their victims for violating civil rights, etc. For example, if I ran you over and broke your leg, you could sue me for damages (medical bills, etc). You can't sue police (or judges or prosecutors for that matter). Nothing protects them from getting prosecuted except for lack of political will from DAs. >the fact that he would be fired long before that for not behaving up to standards. I wish that were true, but it's not. They investigate themselves and you know how that usually goes. If they do get found doing something unconstitutional, they usually get a half week suspension at most. Also, they are under no legal obligation to protect or help you. They are also not required to even know the law from a legal standpoint. Also the FOP is probably the most powerful, unabated by union busting unions in the country.
    - formerly_proven 3y ago
      The counterargument is that not-wildly-violent-and-corrupt police forces do actually exist. Clearly "giving them guns and fast cars" is not a sufficient condition for "they're going to escalate whenever possible".
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > I'm not sure what it will accomplish One, it strikes the unconstitutional law from the town's books. Two, it sets a precedent in court that can be cited by the next person whose rights Newton, Iowa violates or a state or federal agency looking for a pattern of civil rights violations. And three, it gives this young man money damages.
- solardev 3y ago
  The city pays, some budget items get tweaked, and things pretty much go on as before. Taxpayers lose and people just reinforce whatever beliefs they had about police before...
  - FireBeyond 3y ago
    Officer involved might have to take a two hour online video course on diversity...
- prmoustache 3y ago
  It will accomplish that next time someone talk in the public comment period of their city council, they are less likely to use police force to shut up people they don't agree with. But maybe they'll just stop having a public comment period...
- nickthegreek 3y ago
  Well hopefully he will be able to live his life without fear of being locked up again.
irjustin 3y ago
I hope this city learns its lesson after being sued. Separate but related, I'm actually sort of sad about the "defund the police" movement. While it's catchy, it's pretty unhelpful. We don't need less funds, we need different use of funds. Deescalation training would be a massive one.
- dr_petes 3y ago
  Most catchy phrases can’t acutely articulate the meaning behind the message. People who argue to “defund the police” also mean use the funds meant to be distributed to the police force to other services that serve the same role, in a less harmful manner. But that messaging doesn’t stick as easily.
  - DanHulton 3y ago
    I think you'll find a lot of people who say "defund the police" quite literally mean it. Why do you need armed individuals with qualified immunity out there performing wellness checks, guiding traffic, taking statements, and doing investigative work? Why should these roles continue to fall under "the police"? And especially why should they continue to be done by an organization that continues to show just how disastrously poor they are at such things, when at least any other organization would at least start at zero, not negative? The funds should quite literally be taken from the police and given to other organizations, even newly-created ones, that do not suffer from the baggage and the history of the police.
- pstuart 3y ago
  I'm "convinced" that the "defund the police" was planted to discredit the movement to reform the police. Ugh, what shitty messaging. My understanding is that police reform is impossible because the system is so corrupt there's no way to make it happen. I've seen many accounts of the good cops quitting because they got harassed out. Perhaps we should instead focus on messaging for "are the police above the law?" and if not what does that look like? And "why should taxpayers pay for police fuck ups?" I dunno, just tossing stuff out there. But it's clear that policing is broken and needs fixing, and that won't happen until there's enough unity in wanting to see it happen.
calgarymicro 3y ago
For those who think this case will be a slam dunk, don't be so sure. SCOTUS recently rejected an appeal from a man who was arrested for making a parody FB page of his local police department, then denied the right to sue on the grounds of 'qualified immunity'.[0] As a side note, this was the case where The Onion submitted a humorous amicus brief;[1] it's worth a read. [0]https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rejects-ohio-mans-bid-sue-police-arrest-facebook-parody-rcna70435 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court... [1]https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/20221003125252896_35295545_1-22.10.03%20-%20Novak-Parma%20-%20Onion%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/2022...
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > SCOTUS recently rejected an appeal from a man who was arrested for making a parody FB page of his local police department The police in Novak v. Parma were executing search and arrest warrants [1]. There was no judicial oversight in this case. Also, Novak established (EDIT: reaffirmed) "protected speech cannot serve as the basis for probable cause." The court was unclear "whether [his] actions—deleting comments that made clear the page was fake and reposting the Department’s warning message—[were] protected speech." Very different from reading a prepared statement at a city council meeting [2]. [1] https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/21-3290/21-3290-2022-04-29.pdf?ts=1651249847 https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/21-329... [2] https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/ECF-No.-1-Complaint-and-Jury-Demand-FILE-STAMPED-10.12.23.pdf https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/ECF-No.-1-Complain...
  - calgarymicro 3y ago
    > There was no judicial oversight in this case. The important part is the use of protected speech as probable cause to seek the warrant. If officers are shielded from accountability for illegally using protected speech as a basis for probable cause, then the lack of a warrant doesn't help Petersen. > Novak established "protected speech cannot serve as the basis for probable cause." It did not establish this; this was long standing case law, as the opinion points out. What it established was that police have qualified immunity from being sued for illegally using protected speech as probable cause if 'judges could “reasonably disagree”' about whether or not the speech is protected. In this case, if the PD can convince a judge that there was any room at all for 'reasonable disagreement' about whether or not a council rule that prohibits "derogatory statements or comments about any individual" is unconstitutional, then the PD will get let off the hook, even if the speech ends up being unambiguously protected. All that is needed is the 'reasonable disagreement' to immunize the officers, even if the conclusion is foregone.
gardnr 3y ago
They obviously were intent on getting him for something even as they continued to run into dead ends. The body cam footage is infuriating: https://www.kcci.com/article/watch-newton-man-says-police-wrongfully-arrested-him-at-traffic-stop/41069939 https://www.kcci.com/article/watch-newton-man-says-police-wr...
- PopePompus 3y ago
  Thanks for the link. Let's hope the Steisand Effect kicks in.
- b112 3y ago
  I just watched this, and am confused as to why the footage itself, was infuriating. * the officer did not beat the suspect * he used polite language * nothing untoward seems to have happened Note: I am referring to the "body cam footage", as you indicated, not the news report itself, or the overall circumstances. The circumstances I can understand generation of fury. Just not the footage taken by itself.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > circumstances I can understand generation of fury The officer sticking to his original, faulty and increasingly untenable hypothesis is frustrating to watch--it's stupidity and stubbornness from a position of power.
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    Because he falsely accused him of committing a serious crime?
  - quickthrower2 3y ago
    That they can arrest people with no cause.
  - justin66 3y ago
    > the officer did not beat the suspect Wow, we’ve really set the bar for law enforcement low. “Sure, he’s arresting a guy who obviously hasn’t committed a crime, but it’s not like he beat the guy up.”
Roark66 3y ago
I hope he wins, but if the town gets a good lawyer a quite compelling argument can be made that calling them violent without proof of violence (was there any proof of injury in custody of that football player?), pro domestic-abuse for employing an abuser(can it be proven they knew and if so, do they have grounds for dismissal without that person being convicted of a crime?) is derogatory. If it was derogatory he could've been asked to stop. When he didn't, I imagine he could've been arrested for trespassing and all the rest (including strip searching) can be explained as "normal procedure". I'm not arguing it is right what the town did, it is obviously very wrong. Getting his case won might not be so easy, but it definitely succeeded in highlighting the problem in that town. Will it lead to change? I'm not sure.
- solardev 3y ago
  In the US, defamation against public officials is supposed to have a higher bar, to prevent exactly this kind of situation. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/police-defamation-suits-against-citizens-complaining-police https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/police-d... https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/when-complaining-about-a-public-official-can-land-you-in-jail https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/when-complaining-about...
- cryptonector 3y ago
  > derogatory Not a legal term. You're looking for defamation, or even libel. But these are public persons, and as such they have less protection from defamation and libel than private persons. I.e., that defense should not fly.
  - HeyImAlex 3y ago
    This is about a council rule that forbids “derogatory statements or comments about any individual.”
    - sethammons 3y ago
      I'm sure an enterprising attorney could use that "or" to great effect. Any comment about any individual could be forbidden. "Counselor Chris is a council member" could be forbidden.
renewiltord 3y ago
This stuff happens in these towns and small states all the time. It’s kind of what “try that in a small town” means.
- Clubber 3y ago
  It happens in big cities just as much, perhaps even more. It's an epidemic. The only way to escape it is to have a decent amount of land in a rural area, and you still aren't 100% safe.
tetsuhamu 3y ago
Dude was literally petitioning his government for a redress of grievances, at a public meeting exclusively meant for that.
bananapub 3y ago
why are the "free speech absolutists" so transparently awful on actual assaults on actual free speech, rather than people being socially excluded for being arseholes? are there any notable actual free speech fans?
- Karellen 3y ago
  Because most "free speech absolutists" don't actually care about free speech; they just want to be arseholes without consequences, and "but muh freeze peach!" is a handy rallying cry.
- stakhanov 3y ago
  "Free speech" in relation to constitutional law, and "free speech" in the sense of what people appeal to when getting in trouble with a fellow member of civil society for something they've said have absolutely nothing to do with each other. When I encounter someone on the internet who doesn't know the difference (or, worse, doesn't think there is or should be a difference), I immediately picture that person as a teenager.
- kypro 3y ago
  "Free speech absolutists" are always unpopular because they tend to be the only ones supporting the rights of detestable individuals. That's probably why you notice them and it's probably why you're seemingly critical of their character. You seem to be suggesting that "free speech absolutists" don't care about "actual free speech". I'm not sure how you're defining "actual free speech" here, but I'll assume it's state suppression of speech. I can only speak for myself, but personally I am concerned about all suppression of speech. Perhaps where we differ is that I don't really care if it's a mega corp suppressing speech or a government. I don't care if 99% of people disagree with what's being said. I think the fact we culturally compromising our position on free speech today is what gives governments the power to suppress speech. If it's wrong to say something on Facebook, then perhaps its wrong to say it generally? If I can't call you something derogatory on Facebook, then why should I be able allowed to say derogatory things to the police? If derogatory language is unacceptable, then it's unacceptable. This is the position European countries have now taken on speech because culturally that is now what people want. If people were tolerant of speech as a principle then this would never have happened.
ghostDancer 3y ago
Even if he wins, the harm is done, Police wants to spread fear to make people submissive and not criticize their actions. They are not going to pay. It will pay the city, the policemen will continue with their abuses of power.
- autoexec 3y ago
  Which is why the officers involved should pay, with their jobs. The department should fire them to demonstrate to the public that the officer's actions were unacceptable and won't be tolerated. I'm sure they won't, but if they care about about improving how they're viewed by the public they're going to have to start holding their own responsible for abuses of power. It shouldn't end with the police either. That mayor needs to be voted out next election if not sooner.
  - madaxe_again 3y ago
    Yeah, but firing them would make the next family thanksgiving for the chief mightily awkward. Small town PDs are usually family businesses.
    - drewcoo 3y ago
      They have different last names. Are you sure they're related? https://newtongov.org/Directory.aspx?did=10 https://newtongov.org/Directory.aspx?did=10
      - mcny 3y ago
        I think the odds are high given the population is only about fifteen thousand.
      - ceejayoz 3y ago
        I don't have the same last name as my parents. My mother doesn't have the same last name as her parents. Why would you think this alone indicates anything about their relationships?
      - 3y ago
SkipperCat 3y ago
US police forces should be nationalized. Having small fiefdoms just encourages bad and undisciplined police behavior. If you look at any US Federal staff, they're typically superior in their level of education, training and professionalism compared to their state counterparts. Plus, having a national system would prevent small towns from answering to a single person with ultimate local authority.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- klntsky 3y ago
  Changing the structure would not magically educate them. It would only introduce worse problems (of centralization).
  - SkipperCat 3y ago
    But at least they would have a command structure to which they would be accountable. There's too many small, local police forces that are accountable to nobody. Without any checks on them, they run amok.
    - seanw444 3y ago
      The checks are the legislatures that give them laws to enforce, and the courts/judges that constantly choose to allow their lack of education of the law they're enforcing. Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse, unless you're a cop. It's the judicial system's fault. This is one area where I heavily dislike the traditionally conservative brand of politics. Consistently pro-cop rulings, even in shady situations, under "qualified immunity." That crap needs to be abolished, or God save us all. Luckily the pendulum seems to be swinging, finally. Ending qualified immunity used to be a left/liberal policy, but now I'm seeing more right-leaning people advocating for it. Maybe it'll only be a matter of time before we can have pro-2A rulings and pro-citizen/anti-cop-hypocrisy rulings. Just gotta get the boomers and old borderline millenials out of the courts first.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
xrd 3y ago
The strangest things for me about this case is that the police arrested a football player without apparent cause. But, then I looked him up and I think I understand what's happening now. https://nfldraftdiamonds.com/2023/02/tayvin-galanakis/ https://nfldraftdiamonds.com/2023/02/tayvin-galanakis/

422 points by fortran77 3y ago

PredictorX1 3y ago

[flagged]

spullara 3y ago

He'll likely win this case but I'm not sure what it will accomplish.

jojobas 3y ago
Theoretically, whichever elected body that appoints the police captain will look into hiring one that won't cost so much in legal fees and compensations.
- aetherspawn 3y ago
  It's like the xkcd about competing standards, except /s/standards/ex-police captains/ https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/ You give people guns and fast cars, of course they're going to escalate whenever possible. In my opinion I don't think it matters who is the captain. edit: to back this up, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment .
  - jojobas 3y ago
    I have a gun and pretty fast a car, never in my life I've escalated anything even to a fistfight. Why can't cops be held to a standard of discipline?
    - Clubber 3y ago
      Because they don't face any repercussions for their actions. Prosecutors won't prosecute because the police are their colleagues. The police feed them cases. The other police won't do anything other than a slap on the wrist, because those same police potentially do or will do the same thing. The SCOTUS invented qualified immunity in the 60s, so they can't even be successfully sued (or it's very rare and very expensive). The reason we retain freedoms in our country to any extent is because we have checks and balances in government. The police have no checks and balances and therefore the ones who are abusive of power continue to work unabated. Really all this would be solved if we just got rid of the bad ones, but the government won't even do that. The machine protects itself.
      - jojobas 3y ago
        So it's a matter of the city appointing/the voters electing better DAs? The fact that a cop can't be jailed due to qualified immunity is not directly related to the fact that he would be fired long before that for not behaving up to standards. Police is subject to checks and balances, their transgressions just don't seem to be the priority for voters.
        Clubber 3y ago
        >So it's a matter of the city appointing/the voters electing better DAs? Possibly, but they work on the same team. >a cop can't be jailed due to qualified immunity Qualified immunity protects them from getting sued directly in civil court by their victims for violating civil rights, etc. For example, if I ran you over and broke your leg, you could sue me for damages (medical bills, etc). You can't sue police (or judges or prosecutors for that matter). Nothing protects them from getting prosecuted except for lack of political will from DAs. >the fact that he would be fired long before that for not behaving up to standards. I wish that were true, but it's not. They investigate themselves and you know how that usually goes. If they do get found doing something unconstitutional, they usually get a half week suspension at most. Also, they are under no legal obligation to protect or help you. They are also not required to even know the law from a legal standpoint. Also the FOP is probably the most powerful, unabated by union busting unions in the country.
  - formerly_proven 3y ago
    The counterargument is that not-wildly-violent-and-corrupt police forces do actually exist. Clearly "giving them guns and fast cars" is not a sufficient condition for "they're going to escalate whenever possible".
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> I'm not sure what it will accomplish One, it strikes the unconstitutional law from the town's books. Two, it sets a precedent in court that can be cited by the next person whose rights Newton, Iowa violates or a state or federal agency looking for a pattern of civil rights violations. And three, it gives this young man money damages.
solardev 3y ago
The city pays, some budget items get tweaked, and things pretty much go on as before. Taxpayers lose and people just reinforce whatever beliefs they had about police before...
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  Officer involved might have to take a two hour online video course on diversity...
prmoustache 3y ago
It will accomplish that next time someone talk in the public comment period of their city council, they are less likely to use police force to shut up people they don't agree with. But maybe they'll just stop having a public comment period...
nickthegreek 3y ago
Well hopefully he will be able to live his life without fear of being locked up again.

irjustin 3y ago

I hope this city learns its lesson after being sued. Separate but related, I'm actually sort of sad about the "defund the police" movement. While it's catchy, it's pretty unhelpful. We don't need less funds, we need different use of funds. Deescalation training would be a massive one.

dr_petes 3y ago
Most catchy phrases can’t acutely articulate the meaning behind the message. People who argue to “defund the police” also mean use the funds meant to be distributed to the police force to other services that serve the same role, in a less harmful manner. But that messaging doesn’t stick as easily.
- DanHulton 3y ago
  I think you'll find a lot of people who say "defund the police" quite literally mean it. Why do you need armed individuals with qualified immunity out there performing wellness checks, guiding traffic, taking statements, and doing investigative work? Why should these roles continue to fall under "the police"? And especially why should they continue to be done by an organization that continues to show just how disastrously poor they are at such things, when at least any other organization would at least start at zero, not negative? The funds should quite literally be taken from the police and given to other organizations, even newly-created ones, that do not suffer from the baggage and the history of the police.
pstuart 3y ago
I'm "convinced" that the "defund the police" was planted to discredit the movement to reform the police. Ugh, what shitty messaging. My understanding is that police reform is impossible because the system is so corrupt there's no way to make it happen. I've seen many accounts of the good cops quitting because they got harassed out. Perhaps we should instead focus on messaging for "are the police above the law?" and if not what does that look like? And "why should taxpayers pay for police fuck ups?" I dunno, just tossing stuff out there. But it's clear that policing is broken and needs fixing, and that won't happen until there's enough unity in wanting to see it happen.

calgarymicro 3y ago

For those who think this case will be a slam dunk, don't be so sure. SCOTUS recently rejected an appeal from a man who was arrested for making a parody FB page of his local police department, then denied the right to sue on the grounds of 'qualified immunity'.[0] As a side note, this was the case where The Onion submitted a humorous amicus brief;[1] it's worth a read. [0]https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rejects-ohio-mans-bid-sue-police-arrest-facebook-parody-rcna70435 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court... [1]https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/20221003125252896_35295545_1-22.10.03%20-%20Novak-Parma%20-%20Onion%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/2022...

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> SCOTUS recently rejected an appeal from a man who was arrested for making a parody FB page of his local police department The police in Novak v. Parma were executing search and arrest warrants [1]. There was no judicial oversight in this case. Also, Novak established (EDIT: reaffirmed) "protected speech cannot serve as the basis for probable cause." The court was unclear "whether [his] actions—deleting comments that made clear the page was fake and reposting the Department’s warning message—[were] protected speech." Very different from reading a prepared statement at a city council meeting [2]. [1] https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/21-3290/21-3290-2022-04-29.pdf?ts=1651249847 https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/21-329... [2] https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/ECF-No.-1-Complaint-and-Jury-Demand-FILE-STAMPED-10.12.23.pdf https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/ECF-No.-1-Complain...
- calgarymicro 3y ago
  > There was no judicial oversight in this case. The important part is the use of protected speech as probable cause to seek the warrant. If officers are shielded from accountability for illegally using protected speech as a basis for probable cause, then the lack of a warrant doesn't help Petersen. > Novak established "protected speech cannot serve as the basis for probable cause." It did not establish this; this was long standing case law, as the opinion points out. What it established was that police have qualified immunity from being sued for illegally using protected speech as probable cause if 'judges could “reasonably disagree”' about whether or not the speech is protected. In this case, if the PD can convince a judge that there was any room at all for 'reasonable disagreement' about whether or not a council rule that prohibits "derogatory statements or comments about any individual" is unconstitutional, then the PD will get let off the hook, even if the speech ends up being unambiguously protected. All that is needed is the 'reasonable disagreement' to immunize the officers, even if the conclusion is foregone.

gardnr 3y ago

They obviously were intent on getting him for something even as they continued to run into dead ends. The body cam footage is infuriating: https://www.kcci.com/article/watch-newton-man-says-police-wrongfully-arrested-him-at-traffic-stop/41069939 https://www.kcci.com/article/watch-newton-man-says-police-wr...

PopePompus 3y ago
Thanks for the link. Let's hope the Steisand Effect kicks in.
b112 3y ago
I just watched this, and am confused as to why the footage itself, was infuriating. * the officer did not beat the suspect * he used polite language * nothing untoward seems to have happened Note: I am referring to the "body cam footage", as you indicated, not the news report itself, or the overall circumstances. The circumstances I can understand generation of fury. Just not the footage taken by itself.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > circumstances I can understand generation of fury The officer sticking to his original, faulty and increasingly untenable hypothesis is frustrating to watch--it's stupidity and stubbornness from a position of power.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  Because he falsely accused him of committing a serious crime?
- quickthrower2 3y ago
  That they can arrest people with no cause.
- justin66 3y ago
  > the officer did not beat the suspect Wow, we’ve really set the bar for law enforcement low. “Sure, he’s arresting a guy who obviously hasn’t committed a crime, but it’s not like he beat the guy up.”

Roark66 3y ago

I hope he wins, but if the town gets a good lawyer a quite compelling argument can be made that calling them violent without proof of violence (was there any proof of injury in custody of that football player?), pro domestic-abuse for employing an abuser(can it be proven they knew and if so, do they have grounds for dismissal without that person being convicted of a crime?) is derogatory. If it was derogatory he could've been asked to stop. When he didn't, I imagine he could've been arrested for trespassing and all the rest (including strip searching) can be explained as "normal procedure". I'm not arguing it is right what the town did, it is obviously very wrong. Getting his case won might not be so easy, but it definitely succeeded in highlighting the problem in that town. Will it lead to change? I'm not sure.

solardev 3y ago
In the US, defamation against public officials is supposed to have a higher bar, to prevent exactly this kind of situation. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/police-defamation-suits-against-citizens-complaining-police https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/police-d... https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/when-complaining-about-a-public-official-can-land-you-in-jail https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/when-complaining-about...
cryptonector 3y ago
> derogatory Not a legal term. You're looking for defamation, or even libel. But these are public persons, and as such they have less protection from defamation and libel than private persons. I.e., that defense should not fly.
- HeyImAlex 3y ago
  This is about a council rule that forbids “derogatory statements or comments about any individual.”
  - sethammons 3y ago
    I'm sure an enterprising attorney could use that "or" to great effect. Any comment about any individual could be forbidden. "Counselor Chris is a council member" could be forbidden.

renewiltord 3y ago

This stuff happens in these towns and small states all the time. It’s kind of what “try that in a small town” means.

Clubber 3y ago
It happens in big cities just as much, perhaps even more. It's an epidemic. The only way to escape it is to have a decent amount of land in a rural area, and you still aren't 100% safe.

tetsuhamu 3y ago

Dude was literally petitioning his government for a redress of grievances, at a public meeting exclusively meant for that.

bananapub 3y ago

why are the "free speech absolutists" so transparently awful on actual assaults on actual free speech, rather than people being socially excluded for being arseholes? are there any notable actual free speech fans?

Karellen 3y ago
Because most "free speech absolutists" don't actually care about free speech; they just want to be arseholes without consequences, and "but muh freeze peach!" is a handy rallying cry.
stakhanov 3y ago
"Free speech" in relation to constitutional law, and "free speech" in the sense of what people appeal to when getting in trouble with a fellow member of civil society for something they've said have absolutely nothing to do with each other. When I encounter someone on the internet who doesn't know the difference (or, worse, doesn't think there is or should be a difference), I immediately picture that person as a teenager.
kypro 3y ago
"Free speech absolutists" are always unpopular because they tend to be the only ones supporting the rights of detestable individuals. That's probably why you notice them and it's probably why you're seemingly critical of their character. You seem to be suggesting that "free speech absolutists" don't care about "actual free speech". I'm not sure how you're defining "actual free speech" here, but I'll assume it's state suppression of speech. I can only speak for myself, but personally I am concerned about all suppression of speech. Perhaps where we differ is that I don't really care if it's a mega corp suppressing speech or a government. I don't care if 99% of people disagree with what's being said. I think the fact we culturally compromising our position on free speech today is what gives governments the power to suppress speech. If it's wrong to say something on Facebook, then perhaps its wrong to say it generally? If I can't call you something derogatory on Facebook, then why should I be able allowed to say derogatory things to the police? If derogatory language is unacceptable, then it's unacceptable. This is the position European countries have now taken on speech because culturally that is now what people want. If people were tolerant of speech as a principle then this would never have happened.

ghostDancer 3y ago

Even if he wins, the harm is done, Police wants to spread fear to make people submissive and not criticize their actions. They are not going to pay. It will pay the city, the policemen will continue with their abuses of power.

autoexec 3y ago
Which is why the officers involved should pay, with their jobs. The department should fire them to demonstrate to the public that the officer's actions were unacceptable and won't be tolerated. I'm sure they won't, but if they care about about improving how they're viewed by the public they're going to have to start holding their own responsible for abuses of power. It shouldn't end with the police either. That mayor needs to be voted out next election if not sooner.
- madaxe_again 3y ago
  Yeah, but firing them would make the next family thanksgiving for the chief mightily awkward. Small town PDs are usually family businesses.
  - drewcoo 3y ago
    They have different last names. Are you sure they're related? https://newtongov.org/Directory.aspx?did=10 https://newtongov.org/Directory.aspx?did=10
    - mcny 3y ago
      I think the odds are high given the population is only about fifteen thousand.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      I don't have the same last name as my parents. My mother doesn't have the same last name as her parents. Why would you think this alone indicates anything about their relationships?
    - 3y ago

SkipperCat 3y ago

US police forces should be nationalized. Having small fiefdoms just encourages bad and undisciplined police behavior. If you look at any US Federal staff, they're typically superior in their level of education, training and professionalism compared to their state counterparts. Plus, having a national system would prevent small towns from answering to a single person with ultimate local authority.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
klntsky 3y ago
Changing the structure would not magically educate them. It would only introduce worse problems (of centralization).
- SkipperCat 3y ago
  But at least they would have a command structure to which they would be accountable. There's too many small, local police forces that are accountable to nobody. Without any checks on them, they run amok.
  - seanw444 3y ago
    The checks are the legislatures that give them laws to enforce, and the courts/judges that constantly choose to allow their lack of education of the law they're enforcing. Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse, unless you're a cop. It's the judicial system's fault. This is one area where I heavily dislike the traditionally conservative brand of politics. Consistently pro-cop rulings, even in shady situations, under "qualified immunity." That crap needs to be abolished, or God save us all. Luckily the pendulum seems to be swinging, finally. Ending qualified immunity used to be a left/liberal policy, but now I'm seeing more right-leaning people advocating for it. Maybe it'll only be a matter of time before we can have pro-2A rulings and pro-citizen/anti-cop-hypocrisy rulings. Just gotta get the boomers and old borderline millenials out of the courts first.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

xrd 3y ago

The strangest things for me about this case is that the police arrested a football player without apparent cause. But, then I looked him up and I think I understand what's happening now. https://nfldraftdiamonds.com/2023/02/tayvin-galanakis/ https://nfldraftdiamonds.com/2023/02/tayvin-galanakis/