Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The problem will always be there is a tension between the fact real people are creatively awful and the fact laws must be bright lines. yes you need laws like this, because there's a galaxy of damaging and disrupting behavior that is not otherwise illegal, would otherwise require being draconian and excessive (e g. calling some thrown objects during a Karen fit assault with a deadly weapon), and is disruptive enough it is unreasonable to expect people not to ask their government to restore peace.
the problem is these laws do open up great potential for government abuse.
i think that we draw a decent balance in this country in most jurisdictions, namely that disorderly conduct is usually a fairly minor misdemeanor crime, rarely sees a custodial sentence and doesn't contribute to criminal history enhancements to sentences unless it's directly related.
but they still have a charge they can use to make someone having a public freakout go have a private freakout instead. in fact I would say in my experience 80% of the time with all but the most unreasonable people being told "you can go home or go to jail but you can't stay here bothering these folks" has had the immediately desired effect of ending the conflict and getting some space for cooler heads to prevail.
i would be open to making it a sentence that cannot be eligible for incarceration though, like a speeding ticket, or making it automatic community service to further avoid abuse.
also, to address the concerns these charges result in people getting a record. yes that's is true. **this is a good thing**. the criminal record is a record of people who behave in dangerous, unpleasant, corrupt and immoral ways. it is the right of citizens not to want to be around violent, unstable, or dangerous people.
this is why it is good that we give them a criminal record because it is an accurate reflection of their behavior in society and other citizens have a right to avoid them because of their past behavior.
I oppose it. These cases often stem from:
1. Busybody cop sees something that annoys him, or busybody boomer sees something that annoys them and calls the cops.
2. The police arrive/stop you and try to bully you into obedience. They get their egos hurt if you justifiably argue with them, so boom, now you're being "disorderly".
I'm a conservative, but I'm not a big fan of the police these last few years.
It's difficult, but I have to keep reminding myself that they've been doing this the whole time and we're only seeing it now thanks to body cams.
Think about how deeply seated these police cultures are by now.
I know all too well. A good friend of mine, a really good guy, sought to become a police officer out of a genuine desire to help people and serve our local community.
But he dropped out late in his training when he began to encounter more and more the pervasive "us vs. them" attitude. The police see themselves as the thin blue line holding our culture together and preventing it from falling into lawlessness. They see the citizens *first* as a potential threat (mostly to the police) and as people who must be tamed for their own good and safety.
As a military veteran, I found that disgusting. *We* were taught that our fellow citizens were our responsibility to protect and even die for.
Yeah that thin blue line attitude seems to defeat the original purpose of police in the first place - as in, civilian law enforcement who are part of the community they enforce.
Can't find it right now but I remember a training video for cops. They were doing a mock scenario and one of the trainees was trying to calmly and rationally deal with someone who was mentally unstable, saying he was "trying to get on his level" and calm him. The trainer admonished him saying "you're trying to get on his level....at the risk of officer safety"
Edit: found it, PBS report
https://youtu.be/HVqVYNIA8hE?si=itQEw0KI3RmpBrWh
> they've been doing this the whole time and we're only seeing it now thanks to body cams.
We're only seeing it now because of cell phones and surveillance cameras. Body cams wouldn't exist if departments didn't get caught lying because they didn't know they were being recorded.
The sense I get of the past few years is that the anti-cop rhetoric being pushed in the media is being exposed as insane, to the point where even liberals are admitting it.
Sometimes cops are lazy or target honest people for petty violations. But clearly crime is a much bigger problem than cops, eg. several unarmed black men are shot per year while thousands were shot in the post-Floyd crime spike.
Usually, when a cop arrests someone, they are a repeat offender who absolutely was doing something obscene, and the only question is whether they will get off on a technicality for the fifteenth time or not.
Get rid of court created qualified immunity, or at the very least require a Judge who rules it applies in a case to also rule if the person's rights were violated so that ruling can be used the next time it happens, and personal accountability will likely resolve bad practices and "bad apples" in law enforcement.
This is not my experience.
In my experience the usual origin of these cases is a citizen calling the police for relief because someone is disturbing them or disrupting a public location and they want relief without having to risk fighting a crackhead.
Stuff like minor public nudity/bathroom use, throwing things in a store when you don't get your way, threatening behavior that falls short of assault, property destruction that falls short of criminal thresholds but you can't just let someone rip posters off business fronts because they don't like them, discharging irritants like pepper spray imprudently, etc.
The usual effect is not even an arrest, it's that upon being told "you can go home or you can go to jail for the night" they voluntarily decide to turn a public freakout into a private freakout.
It's also used to instill consequences to punish antisocial behavior and instill good behavior. For instance a young woman without much life experience might think keying up someone's car is an okay response to a breakup. Sitting in the dock in front of a judge facing a few thousand dollar fine is going to correct that misconception far more rapidly than just hoping she grows up.
I'm talking about cases where the cops feel compelled to stomp out things that simply irritate them or overly sensitive or fearful people.
I was once pulled over by a cop because (his words) I didn't stop at a stop sign long enough. Not that I made a rolling stop; I didn't stop *long enough*.
The *real* reason he pulled me over was because it was early Sunday morning in a very wealthy neighborhood (think old money, surgeons, CEOs, etc.) and I was driving a very not-wealthy car. The people who live in that neighborhood are very suspicious of people who don't "belong" there, and thus the police are known to pull over people for very minor (or invented) infractions. He let me go with a warning, only because I lived in a nearby (average middle class) neighborhood.
I am not denying this happens, of course it does.
But your case wasn't disorderly conduct it was just a pretext stop-- those are already illegal.
I think we must be careful to ensure our legal system meets the needs of people in the real world. It is easy to fear government power in the abstract but far more frightening when someone is approaching restaurant patrons aggressively demanding money or is ripping signs off windows or trashing store displays.
We need to be careful to make sure our system is not so overly focused on limiting government power that we make it so police cannot intervene to stop antisocial behavior, I view this as as great if not a greater threat.
> But your case wasn't disorderly conduct it was just a pretext stop-- those are already illegal.
Sure but I was compliant when I probably didn't need to be. Had I started in with the "Am I being detained?" stuff, it might have escalated
this is true, but I don't think it impeaches the idea of disorderly conduct law.
"if I argue with a cop they might use this post facto to excuse why they kicked each of my ribs in" means you are well beyond the law and into lawlessness.
no law is sufficiently designed so no cop could ever use it as an excuse to whump on someone they wish an excuse to beat.
conversely no law is so vague it will make a good cop into a thug.
You do realize that when you say "the police" you're referring to an organization of over 800,000 officers operating out of over 14,000 distinct precincts with tens of millions of interactions per year?
Yes, I do.
Maybe it's anecdotal. Maybe I've been cherry picking articles. But I expect LEOs to operate at a *very* high standard. And what I'm seeing instead are far too many stories of abuse of power and violation of rights under the guise of "law and order". Combine that with the utter cowardice displayed by the Uvalde police during the school shooting at Robb elementary school, and it's hard to not conclude that there is a culture problem in our police departments.
And it's personal. I'm a middle-aged, law-abiding, very Caucasian military veteran and even I've had negative interactions with the police. I've also had the opportunity to speak with LEOs in workplace settings where we were all in uniform (Navy reserves after my active duty stint) where they let their guard down a little. Their disdain for (whom they call) civilians is obvious.
>Their disdain for (whom they call) civilians is obvious.
I'm not even military and I hate this.
In addition to having stolen valor vibes (I know it's not exactly the same, but gives that vibe to me), it's really really important that police *are* civilians. To quote one of my favorite fictional characters:
>There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.
- William Adama
>nd what I'm seeing instead are far too many stories of abuse of power and violation of rights under the guise of "law and order".
yeah, because theres no clicks and ad revenue to be had from writing stories about every one of the millions of regular interactions people have with police
> But I expect LEOs to operate at a very high standard.
Why? The qualifications for becoming a LEO often aren't all that high and the protections for bad actors are incredibly high.
Imagine if the same standards were applied to doctors. You'd have people dying left and right for misdiagnosis and the Doctor either wouldn't be held accountable or if they were let go they'd keep their license and would be hired by another nearby hospital. How much would people trust doctors if this was the case?
>Why? The qualifications for becoming a LEO often aren't all that high and the protections for bad actors are incredibly high.
Not to speak for OP, but I suspect he means "expect" in the prescriptive sense, not descriptive. That is, police ought to be held to a high standard, not that they are.
While there is a range of officer's throughout the country, there is a similar Command/Accountability structure that can be found throughout.
The reality is if the department doesn't see something as a problem, then it becomes a massive battle in trying to change it. Misuse of disorderly conduct is the example. One department may outline their policy and run a very thorough campaign of holding their officers in check of misusing it. They've got the policies and willingness to bring down the hammer on abuse. Meanwhile a department a few towns over doesn't give a rats ass. Both have equal power in terms of trying to wrangle it in.
There is too much self policing in regards to issues like these. The lowest denominator will always hold back the majority. It also doesn't help when departments will go to bat protecting said lowest denominator. It takes little effort to find examples.
I'm curious what you think this point should prove. When people around here complain about democrats or liberals, they're generalizing about a much bigger and more diverse crowd than people who complain about police. People generalize about doctors, politicians, fast food workers, and other professions all the time. Why should police get an exception?
Dunno. Your camp seems to think scientists, doctors, teachers and librarians should be held above reproach, just to name a few. Why should police be the exception?
They're not above reproach, they're just more credible than a layman that's spreading rumors.
Edit: I was referring to doctors and scientists with that. I'm not sure where you're going with the teachers and librarians.
I'm not sure what you're asking. When it comes to criminal justice there are experts in that field too. Police are generally not those experts. They often don't even have very much training in policing.
Nobody should be above reproach. The reason the views of scientists are respected is precisely because they are routinely and systematicaly reproached.
Im against it, I'm also against the ol "license plate light is out" so they can pull you over without probable cause just to get home and see your light is in fact not out.
There needs too be more accountability in policing, I'd like to start by abolishing Police unions.
You know what cops tell their kids about what to do when pulled over by a cop. Be polite but don't say anything. If really pressed on something tell the officer that your family member is on the job and you'd like to speak with them before answering any questions.
The people who trust cops the least are other cops.
Here's Virginia's [disorderly conduct](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter9/section18.2-415/) statute which seems a lot narrower than "arrest you for any reason" right?
That's what a lot of people are missing here. It's not about convicting anyone it's about putting them through the system. The process is the punishment.
We should be like some countries where arrest records are automatically private and sealed unless charges are brought. No legal right for employers to access and no legal requirement to disclose.
Disorderly conduct like all other laws has a strict statutory definition, it's not just something they can just throw at the wall and have it stick. Real life isn't like TV.
> 13-2904. Disorderly conduct; classification
> A. A person commits disorderly conduct if, with intent to disturb the peace or quiet of a neighborhood, family or person, or with knowledge of doing so, such person:
> 1. Engages in fighting, violent or seriously disruptive behavior; or
> 2. Makes unreasonable noise; or
> 3. Uses abusive or offensive language or gestures to any person present in a manner likely to provoke immediate physical retaliation by such person; or
> 4. Makes any protracted commotion, utterance or display with the intent to prevent the transaction of the business of a lawful meeting, gathering or procession; or
> 5. Refuses to obey a lawful order to disperse issued to maintain public safety in dangerous proximity to a fire, a hazard or any other emergency; or
> 6. Recklessly handles, displays or discharges a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.
The point isn't getting a conviction for disorderly conduct the goal is to make it another charge to intimidate people into pleading out or walking away.
It's part of a pattern of intimidation to either make the person agree to walk away in return for dropping all charges or to get them to plead to something minor so they effectively can't sue.
Sure you can fight the charges but that's going to take time and money and you might lose.
But that is EXACTLY what they do.
It's called a contempt of cop ticket. It doesn't matter if it gets dismissed down the line. You'll still have to hire a lawyer, go to court, and probably pay fines or court fees. Not to mention if they arrest you, have to spend a few hours or days in jail.
It's exactly like a resisting or obstructing governmental administration charge. They exist to fuck with people that piss off the cops.
Then why piss off cops? How would you like it if I came to your workplace everyday just to piss you off? Bet you would call a cop. And yes I’ve definitely went out of my way on occasion when I thought I was right to piss off the cop. I spent more energy doing that then just keeping my mouth shut. But after I paid my obstruction of roadway fine for being on a freaking bicycle on a narrow road with no shoulder I got the shit bag reprimanded because he showed he couldn’t restrain his anger.
I've worked in private security for a long time. Many of my friends and coworkers are current and retired police officers.
Your comment reads as someone who hasn't really taken an interest into how and why these charges can and are missapplied.
Pissing off a cop can be as simple as asserting your rights, even when you aren't suspected of a crime.
These officers are usually not punished. Many departments hide personal disciplinary records behind privacy laws. Saying an officer was reprimanded, and the officer actually receiving punishment are two different things.
To use your analogy. Someone shows up to your job, and says your coworker, your friend, who you've known for years, did somthing wrong. You believe them? Or do you give the person you personally know the benifit of the doubt?
I can tell you from personal experience. This happens a lot. Way more then you think. Especially if you aren't looking.
It’s simple. You keep your mouth shut. Cop asks you questions like where are you going? Where do you work? You don’t have to answer those. All you are required to do if you’re driving is produce your DL , insurance, registration. I’ve had plenty of interactions with police. I wasn’t exactly a model citizen. Not to mention if you watch enough episodes of cops you can learn what not to do.
> it's not just something they can just throw at the wall and have it stick
That's the point - they arrest you to get you out of their faces or because you pissed them off, or to aggravate you enough to the point where they can beat you up, or charge you with worse stuff like assaulting an officer.
>they arrest you to get you out of their faces
How does this make sense? How does arresting you get you out of their face? It literally does the opposite. When they arrest you, they are then committed to having you in their face much longer than before.
That's a really obtuse way to look at it, and I think you know that.
It's about holding power over you. Sure, you can be "in their face" for longer if you're in handcuffs in the back seat of a cruiser, but you're also in the back seat of their cruiser in hand cuffs. You're a lot less powerful then, and they are a lot *more* powerful. It's pretty simple.
>That's a really obtuse way to look at it, and I think you know that.
I'm not being obtuse. What you're describing now isn't getting someone "out of their face" at all, it's an entirely different scenario. You were lazy in your comment earlier and it caused me to be confused.
I copped a DOC at 18 for riding my unlicensed motorcycle through a neighborhood repeatedly. So yeah I deserved it. Especially after being warned several times by LEO not to. I’m lucky they didn’t confiscate my bike. So yeah it’s not a charge they can just throw at you.
You'd need proof. Back in the day, I'd oppose such a vague interpretation but in the era of body-cameras, we can validate such charges. I'll throw it back to you, should we "throw around" mental illness claims in order to trigger Red Flag laws? We've been throwing karen meltdowns into the same category as serial killers with that label, as of late.
It’s good for a police officer to have an outlet that says “this guy is causing problems , and the ‘keeping the peace’ part of peace officer demands they not be right here right now anymore.” But obviously unethical or lazy officers can make it look like a terrible policy.
Sometimes, that is the only applicable charge for someone who is acting a fool in public.
I'd need to see evidence of it doing more harm than good to want to do away with it.
Your description affirms everyone’s concerns. It’s just a way for cops to arrest someone who hasn’t broken the law. “Acting a fool” could mean a lot of things, but it doesn’t sound like an arrests me offense.
I think you may be inferring a much less disruptive event than I am.
How often are people being arrested for this charge alone? I suspect it is quite rare that it isn't accompanied by a trespassing charge or some other misdemeanor. People usually exhibit some strange behavior that draws negative attention and gets the police called. Once police are called, people can be less than cooperative with them.
I highly doubt that it is a policing standard to start tossing charges at random pedestrians for funsies.
I've never been able to beat either. So I stopped committing crimes.
Always a chance I could be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Cross that bridge if I come to it.
I’m saying- if you offend a cops ego- they have the ability to capriciously fuck your life up with no consequences for them. Even if you don’t end up with a record and beat the charge.
Not really. You can lodge a complaint, FOIA other complaints, take that information to the chief, take all of that to the city council, and take all of that to the news. You can file a lawsuit. You have all sorts of forms of redress. This assumes you were cooperative. If the bodycam shows you being a dick...
Oops- the body cam footage was deleted
You have a pretty idealistic view of how reality works.
And even so- you’re talking years of time off work to appear in court, legal fees, retaining a lawyer.
You’re still fucked by the ride no matter what.
No I’ve actually followed cases to see how they actually play out.
Without independent video evidence of your own your chances are nil.
Even with video evidence the payout is low.
Again- not changing the fact that the ride fucks your life up and there’s nothing you can do about it.
I can also go down a YouTube rabbit hole of police channels and see tons of correct usage.
Odd that you would choose police auditors, many of whom intentionally disturb the peace to illicit a reaction, as your evidence that it is being used improperly.
I misread. You said you wanted to see it doing more harm than good, and I interpreted that to mean you wanted to see more examples of abuse, in particular.
Very few auditors that I have seen set out to disturb the peace, though they do often seek to engage in police interaction. Many will set up cameras on a public easement and film the exterior of private businesses or government buildings and wait for someone to call the police on them. I suppose that could be categorized as troublemaking, but in many cases is not law breaking.
I don't agree with every audit, but they do often capture instances of abuse of police authority and constitutional violations.
Whether that is, "more harm than good," is a matter of perspective and the personal value you place on constitutional rights.
We can get into anecdotes, but I'm not going to be convinced by a given incident that it shouldn't be a law. I am confident that it has been used improperly. I am also confident it will be used improperly in the future. But I am even more confident that, more often than not, it is used in a way that is sensible.
The anecdotes make a case for police training, not law reform.
I don't necessarily disagree. I think abuse can happen with any law. As long as, "disturbing the peace," is not so open-ended as to invite abuse, it can be court challenged like any other.
I'd also like to see more training, but I'd like to see it coincide with more police accountability.
I think police are fairly accountable within their department, especially larger departments. Though I would like to see a national police database so records could follow officers. I dislike an officer who has committed misconduct being immediately hired at another agency. I think the new agency should have to reason out why they are overlooking that misconduct.
There really is no such thing as an unabusable law. The answer is always in judicious application of them. The vagueness is often intentional. Because it also offers the latitude an officer needs to NOT charge someone.
There needs to be some sort of repercussion for those who act belligerent and create problems despite being already stopped. Given that exception I find myself in support of these charges being levied where needed.
In China they literally have the same thing: "picking quarrels and provoking trouble".
In many ways, the society and culture of the U.S. is more similar to China than we give it credit for.
To play devil's advocate. Should someone be able to stand in front of your house or business swearing at every person and using aggressive body language?
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The problem will always be there is a tension between the fact real people are creatively awful and the fact laws must be bright lines. yes you need laws like this, because there's a galaxy of damaging and disrupting behavior that is not otherwise illegal, would otherwise require being draconian and excessive (e g. calling some thrown objects during a Karen fit assault with a deadly weapon), and is disruptive enough it is unreasonable to expect people not to ask their government to restore peace. the problem is these laws do open up great potential for government abuse. i think that we draw a decent balance in this country in most jurisdictions, namely that disorderly conduct is usually a fairly minor misdemeanor crime, rarely sees a custodial sentence and doesn't contribute to criminal history enhancements to sentences unless it's directly related. but they still have a charge they can use to make someone having a public freakout go have a private freakout instead. in fact I would say in my experience 80% of the time with all but the most unreasonable people being told "you can go home or go to jail but you can't stay here bothering these folks" has had the immediately desired effect of ending the conflict and getting some space for cooler heads to prevail. i would be open to making it a sentence that cannot be eligible for incarceration though, like a speeding ticket, or making it automatic community service to further avoid abuse. also, to address the concerns these charges result in people getting a record. yes that's is true. **this is a good thing**. the criminal record is a record of people who behave in dangerous, unpleasant, corrupt and immoral ways. it is the right of citizens not to want to be around violent, unstable, or dangerous people. this is why it is good that we give them a criminal record because it is an accurate reflection of their behavior in society and other citizens have a right to avoid them because of their past behavior.
I oppose it. These cases often stem from: 1. Busybody cop sees something that annoys him, or busybody boomer sees something that annoys them and calls the cops. 2. The police arrive/stop you and try to bully you into obedience. They get their egos hurt if you justifiably argue with them, so boom, now you're being "disorderly". I'm a conservative, but I'm not a big fan of the police these last few years.
It's difficult, but I have to keep reminding myself that they've been doing this the whole time and we're only seeing it now thanks to body cams. Think about how deeply seated these police cultures are by now.
I know all too well. A good friend of mine, a really good guy, sought to become a police officer out of a genuine desire to help people and serve our local community. But he dropped out late in his training when he began to encounter more and more the pervasive "us vs. them" attitude. The police see themselves as the thin blue line holding our culture together and preventing it from falling into lawlessness. They see the citizens *first* as a potential threat (mostly to the police) and as people who must be tamed for their own good and safety. As a military veteran, I found that disgusting. *We* were taught that our fellow citizens were our responsibility to protect and even die for.
Yeah that thin blue line attitude seems to defeat the original purpose of police in the first place - as in, civilian law enforcement who are part of the community they enforce.
Can't find it right now but I remember a training video for cops. They were doing a mock scenario and one of the trainees was trying to calmly and rationally deal with someone who was mentally unstable, saying he was "trying to get on his level" and calm him. The trainer admonished him saying "you're trying to get on his level....at the risk of officer safety" Edit: found it, PBS report https://youtu.be/HVqVYNIA8hE?si=itQEw0KI3RmpBrWh
> they've been doing this the whole time and we're only seeing it now thanks to body cams. We're only seeing it now because of cell phones and surveillance cameras. Body cams wouldn't exist if departments didn't get caught lying because they didn't know they were being recorded.
I agree with this take.
The sense I get of the past few years is that the anti-cop rhetoric being pushed in the media is being exposed as insane, to the point where even liberals are admitting it. Sometimes cops are lazy or target honest people for petty violations. But clearly crime is a much bigger problem than cops, eg. several unarmed black men are shot per year while thousands were shot in the post-Floyd crime spike. Usually, when a cop arrests someone, they are a repeat offender who absolutely was doing something obscene, and the only question is whether they will get off on a technicality for the fifteenth time or not.
Get rid of court created qualified immunity, or at the very least require a Judge who rules it applies in a case to also rule if the person's rights were violated so that ruling can be used the next time it happens, and personal accountability will likely resolve bad practices and "bad apples" in law enforcement.
This is not my experience. In my experience the usual origin of these cases is a citizen calling the police for relief because someone is disturbing them or disrupting a public location and they want relief without having to risk fighting a crackhead. Stuff like minor public nudity/bathroom use, throwing things in a store when you don't get your way, threatening behavior that falls short of assault, property destruction that falls short of criminal thresholds but you can't just let someone rip posters off business fronts because they don't like them, discharging irritants like pepper spray imprudently, etc. The usual effect is not even an arrest, it's that upon being told "you can go home or you can go to jail for the night" they voluntarily decide to turn a public freakout into a private freakout. It's also used to instill consequences to punish antisocial behavior and instill good behavior. For instance a young woman without much life experience might think keying up someone's car is an okay response to a breakup. Sitting in the dock in front of a judge facing a few thousand dollar fine is going to correct that misconception far more rapidly than just hoping she grows up.
I'm talking about cases where the cops feel compelled to stomp out things that simply irritate them or overly sensitive or fearful people. I was once pulled over by a cop because (his words) I didn't stop at a stop sign long enough. Not that I made a rolling stop; I didn't stop *long enough*. The *real* reason he pulled me over was because it was early Sunday morning in a very wealthy neighborhood (think old money, surgeons, CEOs, etc.) and I was driving a very not-wealthy car. The people who live in that neighborhood are very suspicious of people who don't "belong" there, and thus the police are known to pull over people for very minor (or invented) infractions. He let me go with a warning, only because I lived in a nearby (average middle class) neighborhood.
I am not denying this happens, of course it does. But your case wasn't disorderly conduct it was just a pretext stop-- those are already illegal. I think we must be careful to ensure our legal system meets the needs of people in the real world. It is easy to fear government power in the abstract but far more frightening when someone is approaching restaurant patrons aggressively demanding money or is ripping signs off windows or trashing store displays. We need to be careful to make sure our system is not so overly focused on limiting government power that we make it so police cannot intervene to stop antisocial behavior, I view this as as great if not a greater threat.
> But your case wasn't disorderly conduct it was just a pretext stop-- those are already illegal. Sure but I was compliant when I probably didn't need to be. Had I started in with the "Am I being detained?" stuff, it might have escalated
this is true, but I don't think it impeaches the idea of disorderly conduct law. "if I argue with a cop they might use this post facto to excuse why they kicked each of my ribs in" means you are well beyond the law and into lawlessness. no law is sufficiently designed so no cop could ever use it as an excuse to whump on someone they wish an excuse to beat. conversely no law is so vague it will make a good cop into a thug.
You do realize that when you say "the police" you're referring to an organization of over 800,000 officers operating out of over 14,000 distinct precincts with tens of millions of interactions per year?
Yes, I do. Maybe it's anecdotal. Maybe I've been cherry picking articles. But I expect LEOs to operate at a *very* high standard. And what I'm seeing instead are far too many stories of abuse of power and violation of rights under the guise of "law and order". Combine that with the utter cowardice displayed by the Uvalde police during the school shooting at Robb elementary school, and it's hard to not conclude that there is a culture problem in our police departments. And it's personal. I'm a middle-aged, law-abiding, very Caucasian military veteran and even I've had negative interactions with the police. I've also had the opportunity to speak with LEOs in workplace settings where we were all in uniform (Navy reserves after my active duty stint) where they let their guard down a little. Their disdain for (whom they call) civilians is obvious.
>Their disdain for (whom they call) civilians is obvious. I'm not even military and I hate this. In addition to having stolen valor vibes (I know it's not exactly the same, but gives that vibe to me), it's really really important that police *are* civilians. To quote one of my favorite fictional characters: >There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people. - William Adama
>nd what I'm seeing instead are far too many stories of abuse of power and violation of rights under the guise of "law and order". yeah, because theres no clicks and ad revenue to be had from writing stories about every one of the millions of regular interactions people have with police
> But I expect LEOs to operate at a very high standard. Why? The qualifications for becoming a LEO often aren't all that high and the protections for bad actors are incredibly high. Imagine if the same standards were applied to doctors. You'd have people dying left and right for misdiagnosis and the Doctor either wouldn't be held accountable or if they were let go they'd keep their license and would be hired by another nearby hospital. How much would people trust doctors if this was the case?
>Why? The qualifications for becoming a LEO often aren't all that high and the protections for bad actors are incredibly high. Not to speak for OP, but I suspect he means "expect" in the prescriptive sense, not descriptive. That is, police ought to be held to a high standard, not that they are.
Makes sense, thanks.
While there is a range of officer's throughout the country, there is a similar Command/Accountability structure that can be found throughout. The reality is if the department doesn't see something as a problem, then it becomes a massive battle in trying to change it. Misuse of disorderly conduct is the example. One department may outline their policy and run a very thorough campaign of holding their officers in check of misusing it. They've got the policies and willingness to bring down the hammer on abuse. Meanwhile a department a few towns over doesn't give a rats ass. Both have equal power in terms of trying to wrangle it in. There is too much self policing in regards to issues like these. The lowest denominator will always hold back the majority. It also doesn't help when departments will go to bat protecting said lowest denominator. It takes little effort to find examples.
I'm curious what you think this point should prove. When people around here complain about democrats or liberals, they're generalizing about a much bigger and more diverse crowd than people who complain about police. People generalize about doctors, politicians, fast food workers, and other professions all the time. Why should police get an exception?
Why hasn’t the problem been addressed? We’ve had decades of police reform and here we are.
If you're asking me, staunch opposition from conservatives
Plus Police unions wield a lot of political power. When running for reelection do you want crime to go up or down?
Yes, all those conservative Police Unions, has to be that..
Who the fuck do you think is in police unions??
Yeah exactly
Uh, yeah. Police unions tend to be very conservative.
Dunno. Your camp seems to think scientists, doctors, teachers and librarians should be held above reproach, just to name a few. Why should police be the exception?
They're not above reproach, they're just more credible than a layman that's spreading rumors. Edit: I was referring to doctors and scientists with that. I'm not sure where you're going with the teachers and librarians.
>Why should police be the exception?
I'm not sure what you're asking. When it comes to criminal justice there are experts in that field too. Police are generally not those experts. They often don't even have very much training in policing.
Nobody should be above reproach. The reason the views of scientists are respected is precisely because they are routinely and systematicaly reproached.
Im against it, I'm also against the ol "license plate light is out" so they can pull you over without probable cause just to get home and see your light is in fact not out. There needs too be more accountability in policing, I'd like to start by abolishing Police unions.
You know what cops tell their kids about what to do when pulled over by a cop. Be polite but don't say anything. If really pressed on something tell the officer that your family member is on the job and you'd like to speak with them before answering any questions. The people who trust cops the least are other cops.
Here's Virginia's [disorderly conduct](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter9/section18.2-415/) statute which seems a lot narrower than "arrest you for any reason" right?
You can beat the charge but you can’t beat the ride.
They can literally still *arrest* you for any reason. Doesn't mean the charge will stick.
That's what a lot of people are missing here. It's not about convicting anyone it's about putting them through the system. The process is the punishment.
A bullshit arrest is, at bare minimum, going to fuck up your day if not your life. I don't think we should gloss over that.
We should be like some countries where arrest records are automatically private and sealed unless charges are brought. No legal right for employers to access and no legal requirement to disclose.
Disorderly conduct like all other laws has a strict statutory definition, it's not just something they can just throw at the wall and have it stick. Real life isn't like TV. > 13-2904. Disorderly conduct; classification > A. A person commits disorderly conduct if, with intent to disturb the peace or quiet of a neighborhood, family or person, or with knowledge of doing so, such person: > 1. Engages in fighting, violent or seriously disruptive behavior; or > 2. Makes unreasonable noise; or > 3. Uses abusive or offensive language or gestures to any person present in a manner likely to provoke immediate physical retaliation by such person; or > 4. Makes any protracted commotion, utterance or display with the intent to prevent the transaction of the business of a lawful meeting, gathering or procession; or > 5. Refuses to obey a lawful order to disperse issued to maintain public safety in dangerous proximity to a fire, a hazard or any other emergency; or > 6. Recklessly handles, displays or discharges a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.
The point isn't getting a conviction for disorderly conduct the goal is to make it another charge to intimidate people into pleading out or walking away. It's part of a pattern of intimidation to either make the person agree to walk away in return for dropping all charges or to get them to plead to something minor so they effectively can't sue. Sure you can fight the charges but that's going to take time and money and you might lose.
But that is EXACTLY what they do. It's called a contempt of cop ticket. It doesn't matter if it gets dismissed down the line. You'll still have to hire a lawyer, go to court, and probably pay fines or court fees. Not to mention if they arrest you, have to spend a few hours or days in jail. It's exactly like a resisting or obstructing governmental administration charge. They exist to fuck with people that piss off the cops.
Then why piss off cops? How would you like it if I came to your workplace everyday just to piss you off? Bet you would call a cop. And yes I’ve definitely went out of my way on occasion when I thought I was right to piss off the cop. I spent more energy doing that then just keeping my mouth shut. But after I paid my obstruction of roadway fine for being on a freaking bicycle on a narrow road with no shoulder I got the shit bag reprimanded because he showed he couldn’t restrain his anger.
I've worked in private security for a long time. Many of my friends and coworkers are current and retired police officers. Your comment reads as someone who hasn't really taken an interest into how and why these charges can and are missapplied. Pissing off a cop can be as simple as asserting your rights, even when you aren't suspected of a crime. These officers are usually not punished. Many departments hide personal disciplinary records behind privacy laws. Saying an officer was reprimanded, and the officer actually receiving punishment are two different things. To use your analogy. Someone shows up to your job, and says your coworker, your friend, who you've known for years, did somthing wrong. You believe them? Or do you give the person you personally know the benifit of the doubt? I can tell you from personal experience. This happens a lot. Way more then you think. Especially if you aren't looking.
It’s simple. You keep your mouth shut. Cop asks you questions like where are you going? Where do you work? You don’t have to answer those. All you are required to do if you’re driving is produce your DL , insurance, registration. I’ve had plenty of interactions with police. I wasn’t exactly a model citizen. Not to mention if you watch enough episodes of cops you can learn what not to do.
> it's not just something they can just throw at the wall and have it stick That's the point - they arrest you to get you out of their faces or because you pissed them off, or to aggravate you enough to the point where they can beat you up, or charge you with worse stuff like assaulting an officer.
>they arrest you to get you out of their faces How does this make sense? How does arresting you get you out of their face? It literally does the opposite. When they arrest you, they are then committed to having you in their face much longer than before.
That's a really obtuse way to look at it, and I think you know that. It's about holding power over you. Sure, you can be "in their face" for longer if you're in handcuffs in the back seat of a cruiser, but you're also in the back seat of their cruiser in hand cuffs. You're a lot less powerful then, and they are a lot *more* powerful. It's pretty simple.
>That's a really obtuse way to look at it, and I think you know that. I'm not being obtuse. What you're describing now isn't getting someone "out of their face" at all, it's an entirely different scenario. You were lazy in your comment earlier and it caused me to be confused.
I copped a DOC at 18 for riding my unlicensed motorcycle through a neighborhood repeatedly. So yeah I deserved it. Especially after being warned several times by LEO not to. I’m lucky they didn’t confiscate my bike. So yeah it’s not a charge they can just throw at you.
I don't like it. Catch-all "crimes" don't sit well with me. Another one is "resisting".
Yes resisting is particularly devious as somehow you can be charged with it even if you’re not being arrested
You'd need proof. Back in the day, I'd oppose such a vague interpretation but in the era of body-cameras, we can validate such charges. I'll throw it back to you, should we "throw around" mental illness claims in order to trigger Red Flag laws? We've been throwing karen meltdowns into the same category as serial killers with that label, as of late.
It’s good for a police officer to have an outlet that says “this guy is causing problems , and the ‘keeping the peace’ part of peace officer demands they not be right here right now anymore.” But obviously unethical or lazy officers can make it look like a terrible policy.
Sometimes, that is the only applicable charge for someone who is acting a fool in public. I'd need to see evidence of it doing more harm than good to want to do away with it.
Your description affirms everyone’s concerns. It’s just a way for cops to arrest someone who hasn’t broken the law. “Acting a fool” could mean a lot of things, but it doesn’t sound like an arrests me offense.
I think you may be inferring a much less disruptive event than I am. How often are people being arrested for this charge alone? I suspect it is quite rare that it isn't accompanied by a trespassing charge or some other misdemeanor. People usually exhibit some strange behavior that draws negative attention and gets the police called. Once police are called, people can be less than cooperative with them. I highly doubt that it is a policing standard to start tossing charges at random pedestrians for funsies.
You can beat the charge but you can’t beat the ride.
I've never been able to beat either. So I stopped committing crimes. Always a chance I could be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Cross that bridge if I come to it.
I’m saying- if you offend a cops ego- they have the ability to capriciously fuck your life up with no consequences for them. Even if you don’t end up with a record and beat the charge.
Not really. You can lodge a complaint, FOIA other complaints, take that information to the chief, take all of that to the city council, and take all of that to the news. You can file a lawsuit. You have all sorts of forms of redress. This assumes you were cooperative. If the bodycam shows you being a dick...
Oops- the body cam footage was deleted You have a pretty idealistic view of how reality works. And even so- you’re talking years of time off work to appear in court, legal fees, retaining a lawyer. You’re still fucked by the ride no matter what.
Evidence disappearing is its own evidence. You have a pretty pessimistic view of how reality works.
No I’ve actually followed cases to see how they actually play out. Without independent video evidence of your own your chances are nil. Even with video evidence the payout is low. Again- not changing the fact that the ride fucks your life up and there’s nothing you can do about it.
Do I have a constitutional right to be act a fool?
You can go down a YouTube rabbit hole by looking up public police audits.
I've seen a lot of videos of black people behaving badly. What conclusions should I draw from these videos?
That there are lots of videos of black people behaving badly.
So what conclusion should you draw from seeing lots of videos of cops behaving badly?
[удалено]
Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
I can also go down a YouTube rabbit hole of police channels and see tons of correct usage. Odd that you would choose police auditors, many of whom intentionally disturb the peace to illicit a reaction, as your evidence that it is being used improperly.
I misread. You said you wanted to see it doing more harm than good, and I interpreted that to mean you wanted to see more examples of abuse, in particular. Very few auditors that I have seen set out to disturb the peace, though they do often seek to engage in police interaction. Many will set up cameras on a public easement and film the exterior of private businesses or government buildings and wait for someone to call the police on them. I suppose that could be categorized as troublemaking, but in many cases is not law breaking. I don't agree with every audit, but they do often capture instances of abuse of police authority and constitutional violations. Whether that is, "more harm than good," is a matter of perspective and the personal value you place on constitutional rights.
We can get into anecdotes, but I'm not going to be convinced by a given incident that it shouldn't be a law. I am confident that it has been used improperly. I am also confident it will be used improperly in the future. But I am even more confident that, more often than not, it is used in a way that is sensible. The anecdotes make a case for police training, not law reform.
I don't necessarily disagree. I think abuse can happen with any law. As long as, "disturbing the peace," is not so open-ended as to invite abuse, it can be court challenged like any other. I'd also like to see more training, but I'd like to see it coincide with more police accountability.
I think police are fairly accountable within their department, especially larger departments. Though I would like to see a national police database so records could follow officers. I dislike an officer who has committed misconduct being immediately hired at another agency. I think the new agency should have to reason out why they are overlooking that misconduct. There really is no such thing as an unabusable law. The answer is always in judicious application of them. The vagueness is often intentional. Because it also offers the latitude an officer needs to NOT charge someone.
There needs to be some sort of repercussion for those who act belligerent and create problems despite being already stopped. Given that exception I find myself in support of these charges being levied where needed.
In China they literally have the same thing: "picking quarrels and provoking trouble". In many ways, the society and culture of the U.S. is more similar to China than we give it credit for.
Horrific, it needs abolished.
To play devil's advocate. Should someone be able to stand in front of your house or business swearing at every person and using aggressive body language?