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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    How could this have happened

    • SoylentBlake@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

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

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