4 ms·

"There's some question as to whether he should've left the scene or not and I think there's some discussion to be had there" What a weird place America must be

by kjjw 13y ago

"There's some question as to whether he should've left the scene or not and I think there's some discussion to be had there" What a weird place America must be.

josh2600 13y ago
In America we tolerate brutality and are intolerant of nudity. Tis' a silly place.
bmelton 13y ago
There's a ton of law around 'lawful orders' by the police, and how a citizen is supposed to respond to them. Ignoring everything else (please), George Zimmerman was accused of not following a 911 operator's "lawful order" to leave the scene. While I think most of America would have been happy for him to have heeded that device, it is not necessarily a 'lawful order', unless there was a reason for him not to have been there. A lot of Americans presume "not unlawful orders" or "reasonable orders" to be presumed legal, if those orders come from a law enforcement officer, but in actuality, most lawful orders that are given are not lawful as they are not predicated on authority. If an officer tells you to leave your home, for example, that is not a lawful order unless you're under arrest, or if you're interfering with their effecting a warranted search. As such, people see orders like "Go stand over there" as being followed on television shows, and assume that the state (or its officers) have the authority to tell you where to stand. Generally speaking, they do not, usually. The problem is in the myriad of exceptions -- we have the freedom to assemble, generally, but that assembly must be lawful. It's pretty obvious to say that we don't have the freedom to assemble on a trafficked highway, for example. Similarly, many 'free speech zones' require permits for use. That may seem unlawful, where those permitted places are common areas, but their issuance is predicated on the idea that if a 'pro' group and an 'anti' group are attempting to protest in the same space, then violence might reasonably ensue. The fix for that is to permit the space, and permit issuance is done on a first-come basis. The contra-position there is that the opposing protestors are effectively allowed to protest _anywhere but within the permitted space_, so, across the street is generally fine, and is also generally does not require a permit. A police officer at a protest may well be making a lawful order if you're in the wrong assembly area. So yeah, it's interesting, and it's completely convoluted, and while I generally scoff at people who don't know even the basics, it's pretty near impossible to understand the intricacies of what does or doesn't comprise a lawful order depending on a myriad of circumstances. To be sure though, I think it's safe to say that most lawful orders are in fact not predicated on any actual authority, and are hence unlawful.
- fuckpig 13y ago
  Unlike the author here, Trayvon Martin was an actual bad actor.
  - bmelton 13y ago
    It was perhaps an unnecessarily polarizing example, but it was the first and only thing that came to mind regarding "move" as pertaining to a lawful order without digging up the name of the rather obscure case that recently got a verdict (wherein it was determined that the officer had no authority to tell the citizen to move, that it was indeed an abuse of authority, and paired with 120+ other abuse of power complaints against that officer, resulted in his termination).
    - fuckpig 13y ago
      I don't think it was a bad example. Are 911 dispatchers law enforcement officers? They seem like they're usually wrong in the advice they give.
      - bmelton 13y ago
        No, they're not generally law officers, however, they may redirect your call to an actual law officer or police dispatcher. I do not know whether George Zimmerman was talking to a civilian 911 rep or a police officer, but either way, the 911 agent did not offer any lawful orders, the most authoritative statement given to Zimmerman was "We don't need you to do that." Having interfaced with law enforcement at local and federal levels as part of employment, I happen to know that particular phrase literally has no meaning, except "please don't sue us if you do that, because we aren't liable, and need it on the record that we did NOT tell you to do whatever it is that you're about to do." It's not a statement of encouragement or discouragement. That said though, if you consider the outcry that he "deliberately disobeyed a police officer", it's clear that many do not understand the concept very clearly (or they were blinded by the rest of it and went in to full witch hunt mode, which may or may not have been warranted).
  - brazzy 13y ago

by kjjw 13y ago

"There's some question as to whether he should've left the scene or not and I think there's some discussion to be had there" What a weird place America must be.

josh2600 13y ago

In America we tolerate brutality and are intolerant of nudity. Tis' a silly place.

bmelton 13y ago

There's a ton of law around 'lawful orders' by the police, and how a citizen is supposed to respond to them. Ignoring everything else (please), George Zimmerman was accused of not following a 911 operator's "lawful order" to leave the scene. While I think most of America would have been happy for him to have heeded that device, it is not necessarily a 'lawful order', unless there was a reason for him not to have been there. A lot of Americans presume "not unlawful orders" or "reasonable orders" to be presumed legal, if those orders come from a law enforcement officer, but in actuality, most lawful orders that are given are not lawful as they are not predicated on authority. If an officer tells you to leave your home, for example, that is not a lawful order unless you're under arrest, or if you're interfering with their effecting a warranted search. As such, people see orders like "Go stand over there" as being followed on television shows, and assume that the state (or its officers) have the authority to tell you where to stand. Generally speaking, they do not, usually. The problem is in the myriad of exceptions -- we have the freedom to assemble, generally, but that assembly must be lawful. It's pretty obvious to say that we don't have the freedom to assemble on a trafficked highway, for example. Similarly, many 'free speech zones' require permits for use. That may seem unlawful, where those permitted places are common areas, but their issuance is predicated on the idea that if a 'pro' group and an 'anti' group are attempting to protest in the same space, then violence might reasonably ensue. The fix for that is to permit the space, and permit issuance is done on a first-come basis. The contra-position there is that the opposing protestors are effectively allowed to protest _anywhere but within the permitted space_, so, across the street is generally fine, and is also generally does not require a permit. A police officer at a protest may well be making a lawful order if you're in the wrong assembly area. So yeah, it's interesting, and it's completely convoluted, and while I generally scoff at people who don't know even the basics, it's pretty near impossible to understand the intricacies of what does or doesn't comprise a lawful order depending on a myriad of circumstances. To be sure though, I think it's safe to say that most lawful orders are in fact not predicated on any actual authority, and are hence unlawful.

fuckpig 13y ago
Unlike the author here, Trayvon Martin was an actual bad actor.
- bmelton 13y ago
  It was perhaps an unnecessarily polarizing example, but it was the first and only thing that came to mind regarding "move" as pertaining to a lawful order without digging up the name of the rather obscure case that recently got a verdict (wherein it was determined that the officer had no authority to tell the citizen to move, that it was indeed an abuse of authority, and paired with 120+ other abuse of power complaints against that officer, resulted in his termination).
  - fuckpig 13y ago
    I don't think it was a bad example. Are 911 dispatchers law enforcement officers? They seem like they're usually wrong in the advice they give.
    - bmelton 13y ago
      No, they're not generally law officers, however, they may redirect your call to an actual law officer or police dispatcher. I do not know whether George Zimmerman was talking to a civilian 911 rep or a police officer, but either way, the 911 agent did not offer any lawful orders, the most authoritative statement given to Zimmerman was "We don't need you to do that." Having interfaced with law enforcement at local and federal levels as part of employment, I happen to know that particular phrase literally has no meaning, except "please don't sue us if you do that, because we aren't liable, and need it on the record that we did NOT tell you to do whatever it is that you're about to do." It's not a statement of encouragement or discouragement. That said though, if you consider the outcry that he "deliberately disobeyed a police officer", it's clear that many do not understand the concept very clearly (or they were blinded by the rest of it and went in to full witch hunt mode, which may or may not have been warranted).
- brazzy 13y ago