OT: Umpire ejects entire crowd from baseball game
Bluuuue Rajah
Umpire ejects entire crowd from baseball game
By BRYCE MILLER June 13, 2009
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090613/SPORTS08/906130343
Few high school baseball umpires have gotten more mileage out of one
"Yer outta here!" than Don Briggs.
Briggs briefly ejected the entire crowd � estimated at more than 100
fans � during a game between Winfield-Mount Union and West Burlington on
Thursday night in West Burlington.
"It was something else � I'll tell you that," Winfield-Mount Union coach
Scott McCarty said.
Dave Anderson and Bud Legg of the Iowa High School Athletic Association
said they know of no other sanctioned high school event in Iowa where an
entire crowd has been asked to leave.
"I have no recollection of that ever happening," Anderson said.
The ejection came in the fifth inning of the game, after McCarty left
the dugout to argue whether a batted ball was fair or foul.
West Burlington coach Jeff Housel, who said he did not see or hear time
called, tried to send a runner from third base to score during the
debate � but Briggs sent the runner back.
Briggs said the crowd became unruly, and had been unruly during the
game. McCarty and Housel, however, said the situation was overblown.
Because no administrator from West Burlington was in attendance, Briggs
said, the rules indicate that the head coach of the home team makes
management decisions at the site.
Briggs said Housel declined to eject the crowd, so he did so himself. He
called West Burlington police on a borrowed cell phone to monitor and
assist in the situation.
"I know it sounds like I'm the bad guy � but it was the crowd," Briggs
said. "If I got the control to ask one person to leave, I feel like I
can ask them all to leave."
The crowd, estimated to be more than 100 people, lingered. Some people
refused to leave. Others moved 30 feet away to a sidewalk officially off
school property.
The delay lasted nearly 40 minutes.
Eventually, West Burlington Superintendent James Sleister arrived and
persuaded the umpire to allow the game to continue.
Fans returned and the game resumed, under the agreement that "anyone
making a negative comment toward the officials would be ejected from the
premises and could be charged with disorderly conduct," according to the
Burlington Hawk Eye.
"I talked to people from both school districts and both coaches, and
they didn't seem to believe that the crowd was anything out of the
normal," Sleister said. "They questioned some calls, but they said
nobody was yelling loudly or yelling profane. I think it was an
overreaction."
Briggs said the situation required some type of action. "In one area,
most of the people were really being mouthy � not all of them, but most
of them," he said. "And they don't say nothing when you look at them.
They waited until you turned your back.
"I can get it to the point where we can play it safely with the kids.
There was a lot of people yelling and arguing, so I made the decision.
The kids were great, so I didn't have any problems with the kids."
The game was almost as eventful as the delay.
Winfield-Mount Union led 11-3 in the fifth inning before West Burlington
rallied to win, 12-11, on a steal of home in the bottom of the seventh
inning.
"I've heard a lot worse during a game, I guess I'll say that," McCarty
said. "But it turned into a playoff atmosphere after that (delay).
People were cheering, making plays. They had a great diving stop. It
turned into a heck of a game."
For Briggs, who said he has umpired Iowa high school games for about a
decade, there is no hesitation to umpire again.
In fact, he was preparing call a game Friday night. The matchup: a
junior varsity between WACO of Wayland and ... Winfield-Mount Union.
"I'm not really worried," Briggs said. "They should know I won't take
nothing from them."
Housel, the West Burlington coach, said it was a once-in-a-lifetime
night.
"Like I told the other coach after the game," Housel said, "this is one
you'll never forget."
David DeLaney
>Umpire ejects entire crowd from baseball game
Let's get this onto an appropriate newsgroup, rather than four that have
nothing to do with it. Okay? Sheesh.
Honestly, BR, have you stopped taking some meds or something?
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Thanatos
Bluuuue Rajah <Bluuuuue@Rajah.> wrote:
> Eventually, West Burlington Superintendent James Sleister
> arrived and persuaded the umpire to allow the game to
> continue.
>
> Fans returned and the game resumed, under the agreement
> that "anyone making a negative comment toward the officials
> would be ejected from the premises and could be charged with
> disorderly conduct," according to the Burlington Hawk Eye.
And this being a public school event (i.e., the government) that person
could then cash in for violation of their 1st Amendment rights under
color of authority.
Neither the police nor the school district can legally forbid a person
from making a negative comment about anyone.
> Briggs said the situation required some type of action.
> "In one area, most of the people were really being mouthy
> not all of them, but most of them," he said. "And they don't
> say nothing when you look at them. They waited until you
> turned your back.
Sounds like someone has a thin skin and some serious control issues.
Perhaps umpire is not the right job for this guy.
shawn
wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:15:39 -0400, Thanatos wrote:
>
>>> Eventually, West Burlington Superintendent James Sleister arrived and
>>> persuaded the umpire to allow the game to continue.
>>>
>>> Fans returned and the game resumed, under the agreement that "anyone
>>> making a negative comment toward the officials would be ejected from
>>> the premises and could be charged with disorderly conduct," according
>>> to the Burlington Hawk Eye.
>>
>> And this being a public school event (i.e., the government) that person
>> could then cash in for violation of their 1st Amendment rights under
>> color of authority.
>>
>> Neither the police nor the school district can legally forbid a person
>> from making a negative comment about anyone.
>
>First, disorderly conduct is not protected speech. The cliched "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" immediately comes to
>mind.
>
>Second, if the game was being played under the Major League Baseball rulebook (and the vast majority of HS
>baseball games are), Rule 9.01(e) gives the umpire the authority to eject any spectator at his/her discretion.
>
>Otherwise, i invite you to attend your nearest high school athletic event, begin harassing an official, and see how long
>it takes for you to be asked to leave, and how quickly the police will happily show up to (legally) aid in your exit if you
>refuse.
But this umpire knew there was a specific group of people that were
just saying things when he wasn't looking and not everyone. From the
sound of it I'm not even sure it was that many people that were being
unruly. Surely not even half and yet he ejected everyone? I would
think it would be pretty easy to push the point with the officers
given that the official and the crowd must know which people or group
of people were being unruly. I sure wouldn't be happy to be minding my
business watching the game and find myself ejected because the
official didn't like people saying things.
Which seems to be a major part of most games so I'm not sure what the
complaint was. It certainly didn't seem to be causing any harsh
feelings among the kids based on the officials own words.
William December Starr
-- wds
Quadibloc
> First, disorderly conduct is not protected speech.
However, this situation should never be allowed to arise.
Since calls by umpires may materially affect the result of a game, all
baseball games should be monitored by closed-circuit cameras, so that
it is impossible for an incorrect call to fail to be corrected. Once
fans of both teams can see that every ruling made by officials is
accurate and in line with the actual facts of the case, there would be
no reason for problems.
John Savard
Ubiquitous
>Umpire ejects entire crowd from baseball game
And you posted this off-topic article here because?
--
It's now time for healing, and for fixing the damage the Democrats did
to America.
Thanatos
"chadbryant.net" <rs...@chadbryant.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:15:39 -0400, Thanatos wrote:
>
> >> Eventually, West Burlington Superintendent James Sleister arrived and
> >> persuaded the umpire to allow the game to continue.
> >>
> >> Fans returned and the game resumed, under the agreement that "anyone
> >> making a negative comment toward the officials would be ejected from
> >> the premises and could be charged with disorderly conduct," according
> >> to the Burlington Hawk Eye.
> >
> > And this being a public school event (i.e., the government) that person
> > could then cash in for violation of their 1st Amendment rights under
> > color of authority.
> >
> > Neither the police nor the school district can legally forbid a person
> > from making a negative comment about anyone.
>
> First, disorderly conduct is not protected speech.
No, but labeling protected speech "disorderly conduct" in order to shut
people up certainly is a constitutional violation. If it weren't, the
government could call any speech it doesn't like "disorderly" in order
to get around the 1st Amendment.
If a member of the crowd had been screaming profanities or inciting a
riot that might be one thing (and I say "might" because the Court has
held that even profanity can't be legally suppressed in most cases), but
in this case the cops/umpire were telling people that any "negative
comment" was disorderly and subject to arrest. The idea that you could
be arrested and jailed for disagreeing with a baseball umpire's call is
absolute nonsense.
(And exactly what law requires people to be "orderly" at all times, in
the first place? I've never been able to find one.)
Also, if this game had been played on private property, then they could
kick people out for whatever they liked, but this was a public school
(i.e., government, not private) activity on public property. As such,
the full protection of the 1st Amendment attaches.
> The cliched "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" immediately
> comes to mind.
Whether it comes to your mind or not, you're misapplying that "cliche".
That "crowded theater" canard is a short-hand reference to the "clear
and present danger" test, which allows the government to suppress speech
only if there is a clear and present danger that the speech in question
cold result in death or serious bodily injury.
Disagreeing with a baseball umpire's call or making a negative comment
about a sports referee doesn't come anywhere near satisfying that test.
It's not even in the same universe.
> Second, if the game was being played under the Major League
> Baseball rulebook (and the vast majority of HS baseball games
> are), Rule 9.01(e) gives the umpire the authority to eject any
> spectator at his/her discretion.
Perhaps. But it doesn't give the police the ability to arrest people for
making negative comments about referees. Major League Baseball often has
delusions of its own grandeur, but it certainly doesn't have the
authority to overrule the Constitution.
> Otherwise, i invite you to attend your nearest high school
> athletic event, begin harassing an official, and see how long
> it takes for you to be asked to leave, and how quickly the
> police will happily show up to (legally) aid in your exit
> if you refuse.
According to this article, spectators weren't threatened with arrest if
they refused to leave. They were threatened with arrest if they made a
"negative comment" about the umpire.
Huge difference.
And I've been to many high school games where the crowd boos and jeers
the officials when they think they've made a bad call. No one is ejected
or arrested because of it. That's part of the experience. If this umpire
is too much of a pussy to take it, he needs to find another job.
Sean O'Hara
> In article <Xns9C306976B746Flk...@207.115.17.102>,
> Bluuuue Rajah <Bluuuuue@Rajah.> wrote:
>
>> Eventually, West Burlington Superintendent James Sleister
>> arrived and persuaded the umpire to allow the game to
>> continue.
>>
>> Fans returned and the game resumed, under the agreement
>> that "anyone making a negative comment toward the officials
>> would be ejected from the premises and could be charged with
>> disorderly conduct," according to the Burlington Hawk Eye.
>
> And this being a public school event (i.e., the government) that person
> could then cash in for violation of their 1st Amendment rights under
> color of authority.
>
No. Freedom of speech does not include freedom of fora. A school can
kick out disorderly fans for the same reason Congress can kick out
Code Pink protesters who create a spectacle during hearings.
--
Sean O'Hara <http://www.diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
New audio book: As Long as You Wish by John O'Keefe
<http://librivox.org/short-science-fiction-collection-010/>
Audie Murphy's Ghost
<sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the Year of the Earth Ox, the Great and Powerful Thanatos declared:
> > In article <Xns9C306976B746Flk...@207.115.17.102>,
> > Bluuuue Rajah <Bluuuuue@Rajah.> wrote:
> >
> >> Eventually, West Burlington Superintendent James Sleister
> >> arrived and persuaded the umpire to allow the game to
> >> continue.
> >>
> >> Fans returned and the game resumed, under the agreement
> >> that "anyone making a negative comment toward the officials
> >> would be ejected from the premises and could be charged with
> >> disorderly conduct," according to the Burlington Hawk Eye.
> >
> > And this being a public school event (i.e., the government) that person
> > could then cash in for violation of their 1st Amendment rights under
> > color of authority.
> >
>
> No. Freedom of speech does not include freedom of fora. A school can
> kick out disorderly fans for the same reason Congress can kick out
> Code Pink protesters who create a spectacle during hearings.
This is ridiculous. The umpire had no right to kick every fan out of
the stands, whether that individual fan had done anything or not. And
what is a "negative comment"? Booing? Simple disagreement?
Invective? Everybody's just supposed to sit there quietly?
The umpire is free to declare the game a forfeit if he doesn't like the
mood of the crowd. Short of ejecting those fans who had actually
broken some rule or other, that's about all he has any right to do.
In short, the umpire was being an asshole, and I hope they find a
replacement for him soon.
SFTV_troy
>
> But this umpire knew there was a specific group of people that were
> just saying things when he wasn't looking and not everyone. From the
> sound of it I'm not even sure it was that many people that were being
> unruly. Surely not even half and yet he ejected everyone?
Yes everyone. I've seen an entire crowd get unruly (1995). The Penn
State crowd started throwing snowballs at the opposing team, and play
was suspended, and then the announcer said if it did not stop the
entire stadium would be emptied & the game declared forfeit by PSU.
SFTV_troy
>
> No, but labeling protected speech "disorderly conduct" in order to shut
> people up certainly is a constitutional violation. If it weren't, the
> government could call any speech it doesn't like "disorderly" in order
> to get around the 1st Amendment.
The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with you. Although they go to great
lengths to protect free speech (even death threats), they do not
protect the right for an unruly person to use their speech to endanger
other people's safety (i.e. yell fire and cause a panic, or otherwise
incite a crowd to riot).
And finally the first amendment only applies to the U.S. government.
Although its protections have been extended to the State government,
it doesn't necessarily apply to local government which would have it
own constitution and limitations on individual rights. And this
incident falls under local governmental jurisdiction.
Thanatos
<43f50cb1-7183-4540...@l21g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
SFTV_troy <SFTV...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 20, 9:33�pm, Thanatos <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > No, but labeling protected speech "disorderly conduct"
> > in order to shut people up certainly is a constitutional
> > violation. If it weren't, the government could call any
> > speech it doesn't like "disorderly" in order to get around
> > the 1st Amendment.
> The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with you. Although they go to great
> lengths to protect free speech (even death threats), they do not
> protect the right for an unruly person to use their speech to endanger
> other people's safety (i.e. yell fire and cause a panic, or otherwise
> incite a crowd to riot).
That's the "clear and present danger" test, which I already mentioned.
It allows the government to suppress speech only if there is a clear and
present danger that the speech in question could result in death or
serious bodily injury.
Disagreeing with a baseball umpire's call or making a negative comment
about a sports referee doesn't come anywhere near satisfying that test.
It's not even in the same universe.
And you've got it backwards. The Supreme Court has *exempted* death
threats from 1st Amendment protection. It hasn't given them free speech
protection. Try threatening the president's life and see where that gets
you.
> And finally the first amendment only applies to the U.S. government.
Ummm, no. It applies to government at all levels, from the top on down
to the local school board, per the 14th Amendment. For example, Johnson
v. Texas, where the Supreme Court held that the state of Texas couldn't
outlaw flag-burning because it's protected speech under the 1st
Amendment.
> Although its protections have been extended to the State
> government, it doesn't necessarily apply to local government
> which would have it own constitution and limitations on
> individual rights.
You are very mistaken. What you said was originally true when the
Constitution was first written, but the entire Bill of Rights was
incorporated to apply to government at all levels with the passage of
the 14th Amendment.
See American Nazi Party v. City of Skokie, Illinois, where the Supreme
Court upheld the 1st Amendment right of Neo-Nazis to march through a
town full of Holocaust survivors, overruling the local city council,
which had denied them a permit to do so. That's about as local as you
can get.
And then there are the dozens and dozens of 1st Amendment cases dealing
with high school student free speech rights that have made it to the
Supreme Court on 1st Amendment grounds. The most recent that springs to
mind was Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007), a 1st Amendment
student free speech case in which the Supreme Court held that a high
school principal may, consistent with the 1st Amendment, restrict
student speech at a school-supervised event when that speech is
reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use.
> And this incident falls under local governmental jurisdiction.
*Every* level of government in the USA is restrained by 1st Amendment.
If what you are saying was true, the NYPD would be perfectly free to
shut down and ban all protests against the government in the City of New
York, or close down a newspaper that's critical of the government,
because as a local entity, they're not bound by the Constitution. It's
ridiculous on its face.
Thanatos
> In the Year of the Earth Ox, the Great and Powerful Thanatos declared:
> > In article <Xns9C306976B746Flk...@207.115.17.102>,
> > Bluuuue Rajah <Bluuuuue@Rajah.> wrote:
> >
> >> Eventually, West Burlington Superintendent James Sleister
> >> arrived and persuaded the umpire to allow the game to
> >> continue.
> >>
> >> Fans returned and the game resumed, under the agreement
> >> that "anyone making a negative comment toward the officials
> >> would be ejected from the premises and could be charged with
> >> disorderly conduct," according to the Burlington Hawk Eye.
> >
> > And this being a public school event (i.e., the government) that person
> > could then cash in for violation of their 1st Amendment rights under
> > color of authority.
> No. Freedom of speech does not include freedom of fora. A school can
> kick out disorderly fans for the same reason Congress can kick out
> Code Pink protesters who create a spectacle during hearings.
I never said they couldn't be kicked out. I said the police threat to
arrest anyone who made a negative comment toward the umpire was a 1st
Amendment violation.
Bluuuue Rajah
news:pan.2009.06...@rspw.net:
> On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:15:39 -0400, Thanatos wrote:
>
>>> Eventually, West Burlington Superintendent James Sleister arrived
>>> and persuaded the umpire to allow the game to continue.
>>>
>>> Fans returned and the game resumed, under the agreement that "anyone
>>> making a negative comment toward the officials would be ejected from
>>> the premises and could be charged with disorderly conduct,"
>>> according to the Burlington Hawk Eye.
>>
>> And this being a public school event (i.e., the government) that
>> person could then cash in for violation of their 1st Amendment rights
>> under color of authority.
>>
>> Neither the police nor the school district can legally forbid a
>> person from making a negative comment about anyone.
>
> First, disorderly conduct is not protected speech. The cliched
> "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" immediately comes to mind.
>
> Second, if the game was being played under the Major League Baseball
> rulebook (and the vast majority of HS baseball games are), Rule
> 9.01(e) gives the umpire the authority to eject any spectator at
> his/her discretion.
"Any spectator" does not describe the entire crowd. That argument would
fail when examined by a (sensible) judge.
Bluuuue Rajah
> On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 02:48:49 -0400, Audie Murphy's Ghost wrote:
>
>> This is ridiculous. The umpire had no right to kick every fan out of
>> the stands, whether that individual fan had done anything or not.
>
> Wrong.
>
>> The umpire is free to declare the game a forfeit if he doesn't like
>> the mood of the crowd. Short of ejecting those fans who had actually
>> broken some rule or other, that's about all he has any right to do.
>
> Wrong.
You must be the star member of the Harvard debate team.
Audie Murphy's Ghost
> On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 02:48:49 -0400, Audie Murphy's Ghost wrote:
>
> > This is ridiculous. The umpire had no right to kick every fan out of
> > the stands, whether that individual fan had done anything or not.
>
> Wrong.
>
> > The umpire is free to declare the game a forfeit if he doesn't like the
> > mood of the crowd. Short of ejecting those fans who had actually broken
> > some rule or other, that's about all he has any right to do.
>
> Wrong.
Thanks for that well-researched response, Ace. I'll take it under
consideration.
<flush>
Bluuuue Rajah
news:atropos-3D97FC...@news.giganews.com:
You've obviously never hassled a cop.
Bluuuue Rajah
news:cYCdnWSM8or2EKDX...@giganews.com:
> Bluuuuue@Rajah. wrote:
>
>>Umpire ejects entire crowd from baseball game
>
> And you posted this off-topic article here because?
Just to piss you off.
FDR
No it doesn't. If the crowd was made up of school kids that was causing
a disruption then the school district has the authority to restrict
their "free" speech by kicking them off school grounds.
FDR
Than doesn't live in the real world.
William December Starr
SFTV_troy <SFTV...@yahoo.com> said:
> And finally the first amendment only applies to the
> U.S. government. Although its protections have been extended to
> the State government, it doesn't necessarily apply to local
> government which would have it own constitution and limitations on
> individual rights. And this incident falls under local
> governmental jurisdiction.
You misunderstand the hierarchy. In the U.S. there are only (1) the
federal government and (2) the States (ignoring for the moment the
odd outliers like Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.) Everything within a
State, like a county, a city, a township -- all things that are
generally called "local government" -- are officially subsets of the
State, owing their legal existence to its recognition of same, and
they are subject to all of its laws and to all laws that apply to it.
So if the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applies to, say,
the State of New York (which of course it does) then it also applies
to the City of Buffalo, NY, to Westchester County, NY, to the
Village of Nyack, NY, etc.
-- wds
Thanatos
Bluuuue Rajah <Bluuuuue@Rajah.> wrote:
I *am* a cop, genius.
Thanatos
FDR <FDR@fkfkdkfd> wrote:
> Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
> > Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote in
> > news:atropos-3D97FC...@news.giganews.com:
> >
> >> In article <7a5v2sF...@mid.individual.net>,
> >> Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> In the Year of the Earth Ox, the Great and Powerful Thanatos
> >>>> And this being a public school event (i.e., the government) that
> >>>> person could then cash in for violation of their 1st Amendment
> >>>> rights under color of authority.
> >>> No. Freedom of speech does not include freedom of fora. A school can
> >>> kick out disorderly fans for the same reason Congress can kick out
> >>> Code Pink protesters who create a spectacle during hearings.
> >> I never said they couldn't be kicked out. I said the police threat to
> >> arrest anyone who made a negative comment toward the umpire was a 1st
> >> Amendment violation.
> >
> > You've obviously never hassled a cop.
>
> Than doesn't live in the real world.
So in your "real world", you think an arrest for making a negative
comment about an umpire would stand? That the trial court judge and all
the justices up the appellate ladder would suddenly forget about the
200+ years of 1st Amendment jurisprudence on the books that would
invalidate such abuse-- not to mention the actual US Code sections that
place personal liability on state actors for doing just this sort of
thing?
It's apparent that you've confused your fevered imagination with the
real world -- yet again.
You can go ahead and put your typical personal attack in lieu of
substantive response here ---->
Thanatos
JimmyM <m...@nnn.com> wrote:
> I once got some wise advice...I forget from whom, but it always stuck
> with me...never underestimate the ability of police to deny your
> Constitutional freedoms at any time.
And that's why we have courts. To restore them and hold the police
accountable.
Thanatos
FDR <FDR@fkfkdkfd> wrote:
And if wishes were horses, fools would ride. This crowd wasn't made up
solely of kids. In fact, the kids who were present were almost
exclusively on the field. The crowd was made up of adults, none of whom
checked their constitutional rights at the door (as we seem to expect of
school kids) when they went to a baseball game. They certainly didn't
consent to being arrested merely for booing the ump.
Audie Murphy's Ghost
<atr...@mac.com> wrote:
Unless you're dead. Then the cops "apologize" to the grieving family
while tools on usenet say the cops were "only doing their job."
Audie Murphy's Ghost
<atr...@mac.com> wrote:
Then you should know better. The fact that you don't should worry
everybody else here.
No one should be subject to arrest for this kind of nonsense, and it's
not good enough to say that it'll all be straightened out later. Haul
me off for sitting at a ballgame, and just watch the lawsuits begin to
fly -- and I wouldn't stop until I had your house, your car, and your
retirement fund.
I'll behave myself if you do the same.
Audie Murphy's Ghost
BTW, in my haste to answer, I got sloppy about following the quotes.
It looks here as if I'm attacking Thanatos. I'm not, not at all, and I
apologize for the mess I just made.
(Sheesh. Never post before dinner.)
teh_bede
"William December Starr" <wds...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:h1m6d5$4jv$1...@panix2.panix.com...
trotsky
...said the anonymouse.
William December Starr
Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> said:
[ to FDR ]
> So in your "real world", you think an arrest for making a negative
> comment about an umpire would stand? That the trial court judge
> and all the justices up the appellate ladder would suddenly forget
> about the 200+ years of 1st Amendment jurisprudence on the books
> that would invalidate such abuse-- not to mention the actual US
> Code sections that place personal liability on state actors for
> doing just this sort of thing?
The problem isn't that the arrest would lead to a conviction, or
even a trial; it's that when all's said and done, in the vast
majority of cases the person who was wrongfully arrested will
receive no apology or compensation for having been wrongfully
arrested, neither the police officer nor his superiors nor the
police department nor its town, city, county, etc., will suffer any
penalty for his wrongdoing, and there'll be no disincentive to him
or any other officer to do exactly the same thing again (and again
and again).
So the cop wins -- he's gotten to be a bully, push somebody around,
throw him in a cage for a few hours, and basically ruin the fuck out
of his day. With complete impunity.
-- wds
Thanatos
wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> In article <atropos-359AD4...@news.giganews.com>,
> Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
> [ to FDR ]
>
> > So in your "real world", you think an arrest for making a negative
> > comment about an umpire would stand? That the trial court judge
> > and all the justices up the appellate ladder would suddenly forget
> > about the 200+ years of 1st Amendment jurisprudence on the books
> > that would invalidate such abuse-- not to mention the actual US
> > Code sections that place personal liability on state actors for
> > doing just this sort of thing?
>
> The problem isn't that the arrest would lead to a conviction, or
> even a trial; it's that when all's said and done, in the vast
> majority of cases the person who was wrongfully arrested will
> receive no apology or compensation for having been wrongfully
> arrested,
They would indeed receive compensation if they availed themselves of the
remedies provided under 18 USC 1983 (deprivation of civil rights under
color of authority). Problem is, lawsuits are expensive to pursue. But
if you win one, you'll get those expenses back, plus that compensation
you deserve.
Thanatos
Audie Murphy's Ghost <takebac...@2008.com> wrote:
I'm actually arguing that exact same thing. We're on the same side here.
I don't know why you're trying to make me the bad guy with this issue.
Thanatos
JimmyM <m...@nnn.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:46:16 -0400, Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <qu7t351mlq4ibladm...@4ax.com>,
> > JimmyM <m...@nnn.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 16:24:09 -0400, FDR <FDR@fkfkdkfd> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
> >> >> Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote in
> >> >> You've obviously never hassled a cop.
> >> >
> >> >Than doesn't live in the real world.
> >>
> >> I once got some wise advice...I forget from whom, but it
> >> always stuck with me...never underestimate the ability of
> >> police to deny your Constitutional freedoms at any time.
> >
> >And that's why we have courts. To restore them and hold the police
> >accountable.
>
> That doesn't mean it won't happen,
Of course it doesn't. Just like the fact that we have laws against
murder doesn't mean murder won't happen. But when it does, we hold the
perpetrators accountable.
> Very rarely will a police officer get charged with malfeasance
> unless it's so gross as not to be ignored.
Who cares if they're charged with malfeasance? If you're arrested for
merely making a negative comment about an umpire and the court
ultimately invalidates that arrest and dismisses the charge against you
as a prima facie violation of the 1st Amendment, then you've been handed
the basic groundwork of a slam-dunk civil suit against the cop on a
silver platter. Forget malfeasance, take the cop's house and car and
bank account from him.
Lawsuits are filed with the court. They can't be ignored or swept under
the rug by a bunch of cops covering for their buddies.
Thanatos
Audie Murphy's Ghost <takebac...@2008.com> wrote:
I'm fairly certain that even the most out-of-control cop isn't going to
shoot someone dead at a high school baseball game for booing the ump.
Just a hunch...
SFTV_troy
>
> And you've got it backwards. The Supreme Court has *exempted* death
> threats from 1st Amendment protection. It hasn't given them free speech
> protection.
You're wrong. A death threat has been protected in multiple SCOTUS
cases. As the justices observed, sometimes in the heat of the moment
people will say "I'm gonna kill you!". They don't really mean it.
And therefore that threat is protected by the first amendment, except
in cases where the threat is followed by imminent harm (he's holding a
gun).
If there's no gun or knife or other weapon, and you simply say "You
will die" then no crime has been committed. It's protected free
speech.
Search wikipedia for the relevant cases.
> > And finally the first amendment only applies to the U.S. government.
>
> Ummm, no. It applies to government at all levels
No it does not. Prior to ~1960 most of the the Bill of Rights did not
apply to the state level, only the U.S. level. It is only through the
gradual process of time that the rights have been extended.
"Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the
development of the incorporation doctrine, in 1833 the Supreme Court
held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to
the Federal, but not any State, government. Even years after the
ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United
States v. Cruikshank, still held that the First and Second Amendment
did not apply to state governments." Continued here -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)
and:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)#Which_rights_have_been_incorporated.3F
> What you said was originally true when the Constitution
> was first written, but the entire Bill of Rights was
> incorporated to apply to government at all levels with
> the passage of the 14th Amendment.
False. That was passed circa 1870. It took almost one hundred years
(1950s-60s) to extend the U.S. Rights down to the State level, and
even today not the "entire" Bill of Rights applies. See the link
above.
> *Every* level of government in the USA is restrained by 1st Amendment.
> If what you are saying was true, the NYPD would be perfectly free to
> shut down and ban all protests against the government in the City
Well. It has happened. I cannot think of any NYC examples, but in
the nearby state of New Hampshire a gentleman was arrested for
carrying a camcorder while documenting a free speech rally. The cops
asked him to turn it off, he refused, and he was arrested for
"resisting arrest". (Search youtube.com for Freedom Watch for more
info)
Audie Murphy's Ghost
<atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> I'm actually arguing that exact same thing. We're on the same side here.
> I don't know why you're trying to make me the bad guy with this issue.
Because I screwed up the whole thing and got lost in all the
attributions. I hope you saw the apology I posted a few hours ago. If
not, let me say again that I'm sorry.
Bluuuue Rajah
Bluuuue Rajah
news:Uny%l.752219$yE1.748848@attbi_s21:
The mentally ill often wish they were cops.
Bluuuue Rajah
news:WY-dnTMRG6acCqPX...@giganews.com:
A Marvel comic villain uses that name.
Bluuuue Rajah
news:qu7t351mlq4ibladm...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 16:24:09 -0400, FDR <FDR@fkfkdkfd> wrote:
>
> I once got some wise advice...I forget from whom, but it always stuck
> with me...never underestimate the ability of police to deny your
> Constitutional freedoms at any time.
"You can't talk to a man, with a shotgun in his hand."
Unique
> Just like the fact that we have laws against
> murder doesn't mean murder won't happen. But when it does, we hold the
> perpetrators accountable.
Statistics show that murderers have a better than 50-50 chance of
avoiding jail time.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1006725.html
"D.C. police detectives made arrests in 65 percent of homicides in 1990.
Of those cases where a conclusion was reached in D.C. Superior Court
that year, less than half - 44 percent - ended with a finding of guilt
on a homicide-related offense."
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st229?pg=4
"Table 1" shows that the probability of arrest for murder (in the 1990s)
was only 66.1% and the overall probability of serving any prison time
for committing a murder was only 39.9%
> Who cares if they're charged with malfeasance? If you're arrested for
> merely making a negative comment about an umpire and the court
> ultimately invalidates that arrest and dismisses the charge against
> you as a prima facie violation of the 1st Amendment, then you've been
> handed the basic groundwork of a slam-dunk civil suit against the cop
> on a silver platter. Forget malfeasance, take the cop's house and car
> and bank account from him.
>
> Lawsuits are filed with the court. They can't be ignored or swept
> under the rug by a bunch of cops covering for their buddies.
Oh, so you live in a universe where cops never lie and the courts right
all wrongs. The rest of us don't.
--
DVDs for sale: http://unique-dvd.com
165 Banned Cartoons, The Unknown War, Amerika,
Space, Lon Chaney, George Washington 1 & 2,
Rich Man Poor Man 1 & 2, Beatles Music Videos,
and many more...
Thanatos
<54584523-4b01-4b15...@s16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
SFTV_troy <SFTV...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 21, 9:33�am, Thanatos <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > And you've got it backwards. The Supreme Court has *exempted* death
> > threats from 1st Amendment protection. It hasn't given them free speech
> > protection.
> You're wrong. A death threat has been protected in multiple SCOTUS
> cases. As the justices observed, sometimes in the heat of the moment
> people will say "I'm gonna kill you!". They don't really mean it.
Then it's not a death threat. Serious *actual* death threats are not
protected and may be prosecuted.
And it doesn't matter whether the person actually means the threat or
not. It only matters whether a reasonable person hearing the threat
would take it seriously.
> And therefore that threat is protected by the first amendment,
> except in cases where the threat is followed by imminent harm
> (he's holding a gun).
Umm, no. There is no requirement that the threat be accompanied by the
present ability to carry out the threat in order to be prosecutable.
I do this for a living. I arrest people who threaten the president all
the time. 18 USC 871. It's been tested and upheld by the Supreme Court
as constitutional.
Per the Supreme Court, a threat may be prosecuted despite the 1st
Amendment if it is a statement which a reasonable person would realize
would be interpreted by his audience as a serious expression of an
intention to inflict bodily harm.
-- The context and locality in which the statement is made are
important, as is the audience to the statement.
-- The type of statement (e.g. whether it's conditional) must be
considered.
Law enforcement must show:
-- That the offender intended to make the statement that the
offender's audience perceived as a threat.
-- That the offender made the statement knowingly and voluntarily
and that it wasn't he product of mistake or coercion.
However, it is *not* necessary to prove that the offender actually
intended to inflict harm and it is *not* necessary to prove that the
offender had the present ability to carry out the threat.
"A threat made with no present intention or ability to
carry it out may still restrict the presidents movements
and require a reaction from those charged with protecting
the president. Because 871 was intended to prevent not
simply attempts on the presidents life but also the harm
associated with the threat itself, those threatening the
president may be prosecuted whether they are serious or not."
--Chief Justice Marshall, Rogers vs. United States
> If there's no gun or knife or other weapon, and you simply say "You
> will die" then no crime has been committed. It's protected free
> speech.
That's simply wrong and inconsistent with both statute and Supreme Court
rulings.
> Search wikipedia for the relevant cases.
I don't need to search Wikipedia. I'm both an attorney and a federal law
enforcement officer. I have an advanced degree in this subject and I do
it for a living.
Wikipedia articles are written by anyone and everyone, including people
like you, who don't exactly know all the facts. Wikipedia is frequently
wrong. I'm quoting you actual statutes and actual Supreme Court cases.
Which do you think is more reliable?
> > > And finally the first amendment only applies to the U.S.
> > > government.
> >
> > Ummm, no. It applies to government at all levels
> No it does not. Prior to ~1960 most of the the Bill of Rights did not
> apply to the state level, only the U.S. level. It is only through the
> gradual process of time that the rights have been extended.
Right. It's 2009, not 1959. Which means those constitutional restraints
have been extended to state and local governments for about 50 years now.
> > What you said was originally true when the Constitution
> > was first written, but the entire Bill of Rights was
> > incorporated to apply to government at all levels with
> > the passage of the 14th Amendment.
>
> False. That was passed circa 1870. It took almost one hundred years
> (1950s-60s) to extend the U.S. Rights down to the State level, and
> even today not the "entire" Bill of Rights applies.
It did the last time I was in law school. Or maybe Wikipedia is right
and all those law professors, U.S. Attorneys, federal judges and the
Supreme Court are wrong.
> > *Every* level of government in the USA is restrained by 1st Amendment.
> > If what you are saying was true, the NYPD would be perfectly free to
> > shut down and ban all protests against the government in the City
> Well. It has happened.
Not legally, it hasn't. Just because the cops get out of line and do the
wrong thing on occasion doesn't mean the Constitution doesn't apply to
them.
If you think any court would find it remotely constitutional for the New
York cops to shut down a newspaper for being critical of the government;
for the cops to ban all protests within the city; for the City of New
York to declare an official religion in the city and ban the practice of
all others; for the police to just decide one day that they don't need
warrants or probable cause to search your home for evidence of a crime;
for the District Attorney to force you to testify against yourself or
deny you the right to an attorney...
...if you think they could do all that merely because they're a local
government and the Constitution doesn't apply to them (and that's
exactly what you're arguing), then there's not much I can do to help you
out here.
> in the nearby state of New Hampshire a gentleman was arrested for
> carrying a camcorder while documenting a free speech rally. The cops
> asked him to turn it off, he refused, and he was arrested for
> "resisting arrest".
Sure, the cops get out of line and when they do, the courts tell them so
by dropping the charges or suppressing the evidence. Doesn't mean the
cops aren't subject to the Constitution.
KK
> I do this for a living. I arrest people who threaten the president all
> the time.
Please define "all the time"?
> 18 USC 871. It's been tested and upheld by the Supreme Court
> as constitutional.
You sound like one of those cops who thinks he's a lawyer.
lee
No. Thanatos is a prison guard who likes to pretend he is a Secret
Service Agent.
FDR
> In article
> <54584523-4b01-4b15...@s16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> SFTV_troy <SFTV...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 21, 9:33 am, Thanatos <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
>>> And you've got it backwards. The Supreme Court has *exempted* death
>>> threats from 1st Amendment protection. It hasn't given them free speech
>>> protection.
>
>> You're wrong. A death threat has been protected in multiple SCOTUS
>> cases. As the justices observed, sometimes in the heat of the moment
>> people will say "I'm gonna kill you!". They don't really mean it.
>
> Then it's not a death threat. Serious *actual* death threats are not
> protected and may be prosecuted.
>
> And it doesn't matter whether the person actually means the threat or
> not. It only matters whether a reasonable person hearing the threat
> would take it seriously.
>
>> And therefore that threat is protected by the first amendment,
>> except in cases where the threat is followed by imminent harm
>> (he's holding a gun).
>
> Umm, no. There is no requirement that the threat be accompanied by the
> present ability to carry out the threat in order to be prosecutable.
>
> I do this for a living. I arrest people who threaten the president all
> the time.
Thank you for protecting me Than! (Does anybody believe this idiot
protects the President?)
And I'm the POTUS!
FDR
I'm sure he lives on Planet Klepton 593.
Richard R. Hershberger
> Second, if the game was being played under the Major League Baseball rulebook (and the vast majority of HS
> baseball games are)...
Really??? All those aluminum bats then are flagrantly illegal. It is
a wonder that our schools are encouraging such behavior!
KK
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:11:38 -0700, Richard R. Hershberger wrote:
>
>>> Second, if the game was being played under the Major League Baseball
>>> rulebook (and the vast majority of HS baseball games are)...
>>
>> Really??? All those aluminum bats then are flagrantly illegal.
>
> Several minor leagues also allow the use of aluminum bats.
Minor league baseball is sofuckingmuch closer to high school baseball
than to the majors.
Mason Barge
Starr) wrote:
>In article <43f50cb1-7183-4540...@l21g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
>SFTV_troy <SFTV...@yahoo.com> said:
>
>> And finally the first amendment only applies to the
>> U.S. government. Although its protections have been extended to
>> the State government, it doesn't necessarily apply to local
>> government which would have it own constitution and limitations on
>> individual rights. And this incident falls under local
>> governmental jurisdiction.
>
>You misunderstand the hierarchy. In the U.S. there are only (1) the
>federal government and (2) the States (ignoring for the moment the
>odd outliers like Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.) Everything within a
>State, like a county, a city, a township -- all things that are
>generally called "local government" -- are officially subsets of the
>State, owing their legal existence to its recognition of same, and
>they are subject to all of its laws and to all laws that apply to it.
>
>So if the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applies to, say,
>the State of New York (which of course it does) then it also applies
>to the City of Buffalo, NY, to Westchester County, NY, to the
>Village of Nyack, NY, etc.
I wasn't going to mention that, LOL. I practiced Constitutional law
for 25 years and trying to inform people on the Usenet just got me
comments like "you didn't go to college, did you?"
I just wanted to nitpick, since you clearly are capable of
understanding it, that it's technically the Fourteenth Amendment.
Until the 1920's, in fact, the Supreme Court didn't think that the
guarantee of free speech/press applied to the states. IIRC it was
because Congress isn't mentioned in the 1st amendment, so it wasn't a
privilege or immunity. Could be wrong.
The 14th amendment keeps trickling down to all sorts of entities that
get any authority from the state, like political parties, and even
some private persons who exercise virtual public authority. I
remember a local case where a private shopping mall had to allow
protestors onto its property.
One thing that interested me -- was this incident at a school or youth
function? That can influence the standard.
trotsky
The President of Albania, maybe.
William December Starr
lee <lee-...@hotmail.com> said:
> No. Thanatos is a prison guard who likes to pretend he is a Secret
> Service Agent.
What is the source of your knowledge on this topic?
-- wds
William December Starr
Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> said:
> One thing that interested me -- was this incident at a school or
> youth function? That can influence the standard.
The only knowledge I have is from the newspaper article cited at
the start of this thread:
<http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090613/SPORTS08/906130343>
which begins:
Few high school baseball umpires have gotten more mileage out of
one "Yer outta here!" than Don Briggs.
Briggs briefly ejected the entire crowd -- estimated at more than
100 fans -- during a game between Winfield-Mount Union and West
Burlington on Thursday night in West Burlington.
"It was something else -- I'll tell you that," Winfield-Mount
Union coach Scott McCarty said.
Dave Anderson and Bud Legg of the Iowa High School Athletic
Association said they know of no other sanctioned high school
event in Iowa where an entire crowd has been asked to leave.
Draw from that what you can.
-- wds
Greg Goss
>And finally the first amendment only applies to the U.S. government.
>Although its protections have been extended to the State government,
>it doesn't necessarily apply to local government which would have it
>own constitution and limitations on individual rights. And this
>incident falls under local governmental jurisdiction.
That's an interesting distinction. Canada considers local government
to be delegated powers from the provincial government. The "third
level" doesn't really exist in the legal framework. So anything that
limits Alberta would have the same restrictions on the Calgary School
Board.
(But I don't think Alberta HAS a constitution other than the overall
federal constitution. And we don't treat "freedom of speech" with
anywhere the same respect that Americans do.)
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
D.F. Manno
<43f50cb1-7183-4540...@l21g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
SFTV_troy <SFTV...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And finally the first amendment only applies to the U.S. government.
> Although its protections have been extended to the State government,
> it doesn't necessarily apply to local government which would have it
> own constitution and limitations on individual rights.
Since local governments are creations of the state and exist at the
state's sufferance, if the state is bound by a provision in the Bill of
Rights so are its local governments.
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
"When the fate of so many rests in the hands of so few, can the failure
to be accountable ever be forgiven?" - Stephen Hawking
Richard R. Hershberger
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:11:38 -0700, Richard R. Hershberger wrote:
> >> Second, if the game was being played under the Major League Baseball
> >> rulebook (and the vast majority of HS baseball games are)...
>
> > Really??? All those aluminum bats then are flagrantly illegal.
>
Really? Which ones?
> You're welcome.
Well, a speculative fiction group is included on this list. Perhaps
this is on-topic after all!
Jim Lovejoy
dcca00...@l21g2000vba.googlegroups.com:
> On Jun 20, 9:33�pm, Thanatos <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> No, but labeling protected speech "disorderly conduct" in order to shut
>> people up certainly is a constitutional violation. If it weren't, the
>> government could call any speech it doesn't like "disorderly" in order
>> to get around the 1st Amendment.
>
>
> The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with you. Although they go to great
> lengths to protect free speech (even death threats), they do not
> protect the right for an unruly person to use their speech to endanger
> other people's safety (i.e. yell fire and cause a panic, or otherwise
> incite a crowd to riot).
>
> And finally the first amendment only applies to the U.S. government.
> Although its protections have been extended to the State government,
> it doesn't necessarily apply to local government which would have it
> own constitution and limitations on individual rights.
No. Sorry. While the US Constitution cedes certain powers to the States,
it does not cede any powers to local governments. Therefore, any powers
local governments have are powers given it by the individual states, and
thus subject to the limitations of powers of the State Governments.
