Brickbats

Brickbat: Fingered

|

The North Carolina Court of Appeals says a state trooper did not act illegally when he stopped a motorist for giving him the bird. Writing for the majority Judge Chris Dillon said the trooper had reason to believe the motorist had committed the crime of disorderly conduct, saying it is illegal to make gestures intended to provoke a violent response. A week after that opinion was delivered the court followed up with a new order that, without explanation, withdrew the opinion.

NEXT: Lawsuit Against Rappers for Attack by Their Employees in Sneaker Store

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

20 responses to “Brickbat: Fingered

  1. …it is illegal to make gestures intended to provoke a violent response.

    The court understands the limits of an average police officer’s level of restraint.

    1. This right here. Whenever someone gives me the finger, I usually laugh.

  2. A week after that opinion was delivered the court followed up with a new order that, without explanation, withdrew the opinion.

    The court didn’t understand at the time that their original ruling was an obscene gesture to the Constitution likely to provoke a negative response.

    1. Not to mention a benchslap from a higher court.

  3. Seeing it would be overturned the clown court covered their asses. Then again, a MAGA hat it considered a threat to some .

    1. A rainbow flag is also considered a threat to some.

      1. Those Andean Indigenous people sure are scary.

      2. Only to those that fear the U Hawaii football team.

  4. Writing for the majority Judge Chris Dillon said the trooper had reason to believe the motorist had committed the crime of disorderly conduct, saying it is illegal to make gestures intended to provoke a violent response.

    You’d have to prove intent, otherwise this is just a heckler’s veto. And “because I’m a moron” is not a valid “reason to believe” any more than “probably because I’m a moron” is “probable cause”.

  5. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the opinion filed in this case on 6 August 2019 be withdrawn. The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is hereby directed not to certify said opinion. This cause is retained by this Court for disposition by the panel to which it is assigned,

    Just typing: “1st amendment” should have been sufficient.

  6. A week after that opinion was delivered the court followed up with a new order that, without explanation, withdrew the opinion.

    FuckYOUThatsWhy evidently does NOT include violence by police, which is why the courts are reconsidering their opinion in accordance with (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 1942), the Supreme Court has found that the First Amendment doesn’t protect the right to expression used to incite violence—those are called “fighting words”

    But the Supreme Court said that to be considered “fighting words,” the speech would “tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” by provoking a fight, provided that the speech or expression, “when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction.” (Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 1971).

    1. I’m not a fan of the “fighting words” thing. If you do violence to someone because of something they said, that’s on you. I don’t care what they said. Especially if you are a cop. If you have any urge to become violent when someone gives you the finger or insults you, you should not be a cop.

  7. reason sure does love the Man with the Yellow Hat.

    1. Curious.

        1. Urinated on saffron colored hat?

  8. The first ruling did seem to imply that police officers are not in control of their emotions and cannbe triggered by minor provocations. We empower law enforcement with powers beyond average citizens because of the belief they are highly trained, responsible, and mentally stable.

    This expectation especially applies to state troopers. Sheriff’s deputies, not so much.

    1. Yeah, by claiming it was a breach of the peace, the officer basically said “I’m a violent asshole with no self control”. That’s his problem.

  9. The North Carolina Court of Appeals says a state trooper did not act illegally when he stopped a motorist for giving him the bird.

    Don’t worry: when progressives and democratic socialists rule the country, this will be made explicitly illegal, just like it is in every other progressive and socialist country.

  10. It’s true, I flipped off a cop who I thought was following me with high beams on and he threatened to break my finger if he caught me doing it again. When I told him I was a mechanic and could realign his headlights properly he said they were angled like that on purpose. When I asked if he got flipped off a lot he said people hate cops. I would have pointed out that people hate assholes with misaligned headlights but I figured that was beyond his grasp.