# The Right To Be a Jerk



## Big Don (Jun 5, 2011)

*The Right To Be a Jerk*

*The First Amendment protects ugly speech.*

A. Barton Hinkle | June 3, 2011 Reason.com EXCERPT:


 			        	 	 	 	 	  	  	Being a jerk is not a crime. That's a lucky break for many of us, but it wasn't enough to keep Nate Cox out of hot water. On a fine spring day in April, Cox was driving down the street in Richmond, Virginia when he spied a member of the VCU campus Police Department nearby. Cox grabbed a bullhorn and shouted, "Stop harassing people, we pay your paychecks!" (Why did he have a bullhorn? That's an interesting question, but orthogonal to the issues here.)
 Officer S.W. Kelleythe target of the tauntjumped in his car, gave chase and pulled Cox over. When Cox asked why, Kelley told him, "You looked like you were a little distracted when you were driving." Kelley wrote up a charge of obstructing justice -- which is an odd thing to write someone up for if you're concerned that he's not keeping his eyes on the road. Cox asked how he had obstructed justice. Kelley replied that Cox "distracted me from doing my job."
 Cox demanded to speak with Kelley's supervisor. When the supervisor arrived, he and Cox had a frank exchange of views, and Kelley issued a new citation, for disorderly conduct. The supervisor told Cox that yelling at Kelley through a bullhorn was disorderly conduct. Cox, who also had a camera with him, posted a video of the incident online. You can find it at www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y85wzcIYYgor just Google "the state vs. Nate Cox."
 If you watch the clip, you might come away with the impression that Cox acted like an obnoxious punk. How? He said something that wasn't nice to a policeman, and he said it loudly. And as Kelley testified, "his attitude and the way he went about carrying himself" were on the sassy sidethough there's no law requiring citizens to display cringing submission in the presence of a policeman, either.
 Now, none of us is a mind reader. But it seems fair to wonder whether Kelley would have written Cox up if Cox had bellowed something more flattering to the ego, such as: "Thanks for keeping our streets safe, Officer!"
 If the answer is no, then it looks as though Cox received a fine and a suspended jail sentence simply for expressing an opinion the government doesn't like. They do that sort of thingin places like Cuba and North Korea. We're not supposed to do it in America.
 But suppose the answer is yes. Suppose Cox had been given a summons for distracting Officer Kelley with high-decibel flattery. Does yelling at a cop as you're driving by meet the standard for disorderly conduct?
 Not hardly. Virginia law specifies that disorderly conduct "shall not be deemed to include the utterance or display of any words." Further, it must have "a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person  at whom  such conduct was directed." And there is a whole string of cases in which the courts have found that people who said things much worse to police officers than Cox did had a First Amendment right to do so. In one, _Ford v. City of Newport News_, the accused "was so loud and boisterous that apartment dwellers in a nearby building came out on their porch and asked if the officers needed help." Yet the court found no basis for a disorderly-conduct charge.
 Then there is _City of Houston v. Hill_, in which Raymond Wayne Hill started yelling at two Houston cops during an incident in 1982. "Why don't you pick on someone your own size?" he hollered. One of the officers asked, "[A]re you interrupting me in my official capacity as a Houston police officer?" Hill shot back, "Yes, why don't you pick on somebody my size?" The officers took him up on the suggestion and arrested Hill for violating a city ordinance prohibiting "intentionally interrupt[ing] a city policeman  by verbal challenge during an investigation."
END EXCERPT


> *Definition of ORTHOGONAL*
> 
> 1
> _a_ *:* intersecting or lying at right angles


Yeah, that was someone trying to use a $10 word when a 5 cent one would have sufficed.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 5, 2011)

you mouth off to the guys with sticks and guns, dont come crying when something bad happens to you.

punk


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 5, 2011)

Kind of a selective quote of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, at § 18.2-415.  The entirety follows:
_A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with the intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he: _
_ A. In any street, highway, public building, or while in or on a public conveyance, or public place engages in conduct having a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person or persons at whom, individually, such conduct is directed; or _
_ B. Willfully or being intoxicated, whether willfully or not, and whether such intoxication results from self-administered alcohol or other drug of whatever nature, disrupts any funeral, memorial service, or meeting of the governing body of any political subdivision of this Commonwealth or a division or agency thereof, or of any school, literary society or place of religious worship, if the disruption (i) prevents or interferes with the orderly conduct of the funeral, memorial service, or meeting or (ii) has a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person or persons at whom, individually, the disruption is directed; or _
_ C. Willfully or while intoxicated, whether willfully or not, and whether such intoxication results from self-administered alcohol or other drug of whatever nature, disrupts the operation of any school or any activity conducted or sponsored by any school, if the disruption (i) prevents or interferes with the orderly conduct of the operation or activity or (ii) has a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person or persons at whom, individually, the disruption is directed. _
_ *However, the conduct prohibited under subdivision A, B or C of this section shall not be deemed to include the utterance or display of any words or to include conduct otherwise made punishable under this title. *_
_ The person in charge of any such building, place, conveyance, meeting, operation or activity may eject therefrom any person who violates any provision of this section, with the aid, if necessary, of any persons who may be called upon for such purpose. _
_ The governing bodies of counties, cities and towns are authorized to adopt ordinances prohibiting and punishing the acts and conduct prohibited by this section, provided that the punishment fixed therefor shall not exceed that prescribed for a Class 1 misdemeanor. A person violating any provision of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. _
_ (Code 1950, §§ 18.1-239, 18.1-240, 18.1-253.1 through 18.1-253.3; 1960, c. 358; 1968, c. 639; 1969, Ex. Sess., c. 2; 1970, c. 374; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1976, c. 244; 1990, c. 627; 2006, c. 250.) _
(emphasis mine)
Obstruction of justice is 18.2-460, which reads in relevant portion:
_A. If any person without just cause knowingly obstructs a judge, magistrate, justice, juror, attorney for the Commonwealth, witness, any law-enforcement officer, or animal control officer employed pursuant to § 3.2-6555 in the performance of his duties as such or fails or refuses without just cause to cease such obstruction when requested to do so by such judge, magistrate, justice, juror, attorney for the Commonwealth, witness, law-enforcement officer, or animal control officer employed pursuant to § 3.2-6555, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. _

Generally, disorderly conduct must have a tendency to cause violence or significant disruption -- but it's been rather loosely interpreted.  (I know one county that routinely charges disorderly for urinating in public because they don't have a specific code against that.)  It probably won't fly in this case, would be my guess.

In the end -- this was a case of contempt of cop.  With a little more creativity, they'd have made charges that would have stuck.  Trust me...  There are all sorts of things things on the books to drive a message home.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 5, 2011)

I've watched his video now; the charges apparently were upheld at district court, and have been appealed.  That means Cox will get a new trial at circuit court.  I'll be interested to see how that winds out.  I suspect it's going to turn on what the officer was involved in and how well he articulates how Cox interfered with him in the performance of his duties.

Cox is clearly an activist (bullhorn, copies of the Constitution, demeanor, specific knowledge and plan).  That's great; it's his right.  But, in a way, he's lucky.  Had it been my stop, and had I decided to issue him whatever charge -- I wouldn't have been calling a supervisor.  He'd have been given one last chance to sign, after I explained to him that if he didn't sign, he's got to be arrested and taken before a magistrate.  I don't argue on the side of the road.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 5, 2011)

Respect for the law is one thing... that's a token given because they are out there doing their jobs which we (john q.) pay for. Yelling out is one thing too... using a bullhorn is something else, that reasonably shows intent to start some ****. Why else would he have one in the car... horn broke? yeah right. 

People want to be jerks then let 'em... best thing to do with them is ignore them... of course if they're being jerks while you're trying to interact with them (store, restaurant, whatever) then either snappy comebacks or go somewhere else. Right... being a sheeple because sometimes being a sheep-dog (barking back) winds you up in jail. 

My belief that people who are being jerks are 1. choosing to be and 2. haven't got the intelligence or education level to be anything else, not to mention 3. They just can't find anything else better to do with their lives.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 6, 2011)

I for one belive that a lot of our Police (not all mind you) need to be held more accountable for there actions.  The man wasn't violent..a jerk yes..but not a threat..

I can't be sure but if anything he should get a traffic violation..if anything, for the drive by type deal..be besides that...the free speech aspect I would defend tooth and nail.

also i would like to note..I wasn't able to watch the video, being that I am at work.


----------



## MJS (Jun 6, 2011)

Big Don said:


> *The Right To Be a Jerk*
> 
> *The First Amendment protects ugly speech.*
> 
> ...


 
As I said in the other thread....you no matter how you slice it or dice it, this jackass was causing a disturbance/hindering whatever it was, the cop was doing.  Of course, I love how people always have to throw out what they feel is some sort of trump card...."We pay your salary!"  Umm...yeah, and?????  If I had a dollar for every time someone name dropped with me or said they'd call the mayor, because they didn't like what I told them, I'd have quite a stash. LOL.  

Whats even more funny, is how this guy couldn't keep his trap shut, so the charges just kept adding up. LOL.   Bottom line....this guy hates cops.  Of course, theres nothing wrong with this....people are entitled to like/dislike anyone they choose.  But theres a childish way and a mature way to go about it.  This guy chose the childish way.  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorderly_conduct

Seems pretty clear cut to me.  I'm not sure how the police have to be more accountable.  Personally, I'd have done the same thing the cop here did.  Could he have just ignored the kid and chalked it up to him being an ***?  Sure, just like the cop following behind a car who doesnt come to a full stop at a stop sign, doesnt have to pull the car over, but if he chooses to, he could give a verbal warning all the way to a ticket.  Alot depends on your attitude as well, not just the cops.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 6, 2011)

MJS said:


> As I said in the other thread....you no matter how you slice it or dice it, this jackass was causing a disturbance/hindering whatever it was, the cop was doing.  Of course, I love how people always have to throw out what they feel is some sort of trump card...."We pay your salary!"  Umm...yeah, and?????  If I had a dollar for every time someone name dropped with me or said they'd call the mayor, because they didn't like what I told them, I'd have quite a stash. LOL.
> 
> Whats even more funny, is how this guy couldn't keep his trap shut, so the charges just kept adding up. LOL.   Bottom line....this guy hates cops.  Of course, theres nothing wrong with this....people are entitled to like/dislike anyone they choose.  But theres a childish way and a mature way to go about it.  This guy chose the childish way.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorderly_conduct
> ...


I used to know a guy who had calculated the average tax payer's contribution to his salary, and would offer a refund...  It was something like a quarter.  That, and most of the people (like Cox) who throw that out don't pay attention and DO NOT pay that cop's salary at all.  (OK, maybe a miniscule contribution through sales taxes or the like.)


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 6, 2011)

MJS said:


> I'm not sure how the police have to be more accountable. Personally, I'd have done the same thing the cop here did. Could he have just ignored the kid and chalked it up to him being an ***? Sure, just like the cop following behind a car who doesnt come to a full stop at a stop sign, doesnt have to pull the car over, but if he chooses to, he could give a verbal warning all the way to a ticket. Alot depends on your attitude as well, not just the cops.


 

I agree that there is always two sides to every story, and yes the guy truely was being a jerk..of course he could have done better about the situation, but no true laws were broken here.  They were just words.  The Police officer could have been out catching a Rapist or a drug dealer, but no, he took time out of his day to chase down a harmless jerk, again, no laws were truely broken here.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 6, 2011)

uh, NO

that jerk CAUSED a police officer to take time out of his day to deal with his punk ***.

he should have gotten stomped, then maybe he would have learned not to poke the big dog with the sharp stick


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 6, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> uh, NO
> 
> that jerk CAUSED a police officer to take time out of his day to deal with his punk ***.
> 
> he should have gotten stomped, then maybe he would have learned not to poke the big dog with the sharp stick


 

Sarcasm I hope.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 6, 2011)

not in the slightest.

that little **** head needs a good lesson in why you dont mess with people


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 6, 2011)

Then maybe you would feel more at home in a communist country...or maybe a dictatorship.

Sounds like you want to burn the bill of rights, and constatution while your at it.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 6, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> not in the slightest.
> 
> that little **** head needs a good lesson in why you dont mess with people


Is police brutality one of the conservative ideals you buy into? Note you are negating all you may or may not have accomplished by posting "other" conservative ideals. You have some points but a hat could cover those up.
Sean


----------



## MJS (Jun 6, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> I agree that there is always two sides to every story, and yes the guy truely was being a jerk..of course he could have done better about the situation, but no true laws were broken here. They were just words. The Police officer could have been out catching a Rapist or a drug dealer, but no, he took time out of his day to chase down a harmless jerk, again, no laws were truely broken here.


 
Yes Sir, you are correct....they were only words.  The old sticks and stone may break your bones...saying, comes to mind.  And many times, I've applied that to the real world.   But, it seems to me, that it was the way he went about it, that brought all the attention upon himself.  Driving down the road, yelling into a bullhorn???  If that doesnt draw attention, negative attention at that, to you, then I dont know what does. LOL.  Seems initially it was disturbing the peace, and of course, because he couldn't keep his trap shut, more charges were added.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 6, 2011)

i spent 12 years in uniform defending this country,and the constitution, you are welcome

but i happen to think that if you go and pick a fight, you dont get to ***** about it when you get stomped....





Sensei Payne said:


> Then maybe you would feel more at home in a communist country...or maybe a dictatorship.
> 
> Sounds like you want to burn the bill of rights, and constatution while your at it.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 6, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> Is police brutality one of the conservative ideals you buy into?



no, i am a  firm believer in karma

you poke the big dog, dont come crying when you get bit.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 6, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> no, i am a  firm believer in karma
> 
> you poke the big dog, dont come crying when you get bit.


If a government official stomps you, you have a case to destroy that officials life. This is what you wore a uniform to protect. Do you not believe in what you were protecting?
Sean


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 6, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> no, i am a  firm believer in karma
> 
> you poke the big dog, dont come crying when you get bit.



read it again


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 6, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> i spent 12 years in uniform defending this country,and the constitution, you are welcome
> 
> but i happen to think that if you go and pick a fight, you dont get to ***** about it when you get stomped....


 

First I want to say I respect your time served and time being served by you, and active duty soliders...but with that being said.

There was no "fight" here..it was simply someone opinion, no threats of violence, no "peacocking".  Just a guy expressing his opinion, although in a rather dramatic fasion.

I WOULD agree with you, if the guy threw something at them police..spit on them...threatened them...but he didn't..the guy had absolutely no physical agression toward anyone...the only thing that hurt this Police officer..were words..I would hope the Police would be stronger than that.

Sounds like the Officer of the Law...let his Ego get in the way.


----------



## crushing (Jun 6, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> i spent 12 years in uniform defending this country,and the constitution, you are welcome


 
So?  I know people that served longer that weren't worth a ****.  The same ones also seemed to have had a sense of entitlement and expectation of "thank you" from people they met.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 6, 2011)

cush, relax. I mention it only when people start yapping at the constitution that in all chances they never faught to protect


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 6, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> Sounds like the Officer of the Law...let his Ego get in the way.



this, while true, doesnt negate karma


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 6, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> this, while true, doesnt negate karma


 

We agree then that this guy really is a Jerk.  LOL


----------



## MJS (Jun 6, 2011)

The moral of the story here, as I said....anyone is entitled to like/dislike/say what they want. But, understand that there are right and wrong ways to go about things. If I disagree with someone, and I simply say, "Well, IMO, I feel you're wrong." vs. "Well ya know what...you're a ****ing ******* pal! Take your head out of your ***!!!" 

If the officer who pulls me over, tells me to hand him my DL, whether I feel its right or wrong, I'm going to do it. That'll cause me less headache compared to if I said, "**** you pig, I'm not handing you ****!!!"

Officer wants me to get out so he can pat me down and/or search the car....fine. 

[yt]uj0mtxXEGE8[/yt]

So much truth in this, its not even funny...well, actually, yes, the clip is quite funny.


----------



## MJS (Jun 6, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> Sounds like the Officer of the Law...let his Ego get in the way.


 
While I do respect your opinion, I'm going to disagree, as I dont feel its the case.  As I said before, sure, he could've easily let it slide, chalking it up to the guy being an ***, but...IMHO, the officer was well within his right to stop him.  After all, the guy was engaging in disorderly conduct.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 6, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> cush, relax. I mention it only when people start yapping at the constitution that in all chances they never faught to protect


So pointing out law gets met with, "How long did you serve?".  Who cares what they do for a living? The constitution should be able to stand alone, veterans quoting it or not. Your military service record and three bucks should get you a  Mocha at a coffee stand, as mine does.
Sean


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 6, 2011)

my my, arnt we a little spicy today.....


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 6, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> my my, arnt we a little spicy today.....


I just got off a grave shift and am unwinding. LOL


----------



## Balrog (Jun 6, 2011)

MJS said:


> As I said in the other thread....you no matter how you slice it or dice it, this jackass was causing a disturbance/hindering whatever it was, the cop was doing. Of course, I love how people always have to throw out what they feel is some sort of trump card...."We pay your salary!" Umm...yeah, and????? If I had a dollar for every time someone name dropped with me or said they'd call the mayor, because they didn't like what I told them, I'd have quite a stash. LOL.


 
My immediate stock response was, "Really?  I need a raise, because I don't get paid enough to put up with jerks."


----------

