a question about the police and segregation

[BH]

I have always wondered something about the power of the police and the consequences of enforcing unpopular and or immoral laws.

You are the cop in the late 50's who arrested black bus boycotters and had firemen turn their firehoses on black protestors. You are still alive today and find that your home has burned down. You turn to your community for help. Can the black people you arrested and had hosed legally tell you they will not help you because of what you did back then, especially if you are unapologetic about it? And if the black people who were victims can I am sure whites sympathetic to integration and the protestors could to.

Another question. Whether true or not we have all heard stories about speed traps in small towns. People have gone to jail for putting signs out saying "Speed Trap". However, is there a law saying "Do not like local speed limit laws and getting tickets? Boycott the town's businesses" is not allowed?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

For the first one, I don't see much of an issue. Sometimes it's nice when bad things happen to bad people and there's no obligation for someone to go two steps out of their way to help an asshole.

For the second, I'm reminded of a radio station in Montreal from back when I lived there. They used to have people call in and they'd announce where all the speed traps were around the city that day. The police wanted them to stop doing this but they refused by saying that the rationale for speed traps was to get people to slow down and avoid accidents, not to raise revenue for the city. If people know that there's a speed trap coming up, they're going to slow down and that does the job. I agree with the radio station.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Another question. Whether true or not we have all heard stories about speed traps in small towns. People have gone to jail for putting signs out saying "Speed Trap". However, is there a law saying "Do not like local speed limit laws and getting tickets? Boycott the town's businesses" is not allowed?

A woman walking along a highway was arrested for carrying a sign that warned 'cop parked ahead, slow down.' (I don't have a link, a consequence of being older than the internet). Her defense was that it was just the same as when people flash their highbeams at oncoming cars to spread the word about speed traps ahead.

She was flabbergasted to learn that in that state, it's illegal to flash high beams for that purpose.

I also remember a news article about someone going to court to prove that he had a right to post 'Slow Down' signs in his yard, because he was concerned about the neighborhood kids getting hurt. he won, but only because he didn't add 'speed trap ahead' to the sign. The court agreed that it was a free speech right as long as he didn't intentionally interfere with police business.

On the other hand, a civil rights group hung a huge 'speed trap ahead' banner on an overpass. They were arrested, and the cops were amazed to discover that in THAT state, it was not illegal.

I'm sure they've had that oversight corrected since then.

 

[dismal]

Another question. Whether true or not we have all heard stories about speed traps in small towns. People have gone to jail for putting signs out saying "Speed Trap". However, is there a law saying "Do not like local speed limit laws and getting tickets? Boycott the town's businesses" is not allowed?

A woman walking along a highway was arrested for carrying a sign that warned 'cop parked ahead, slow down.' (I don't have a link, a consequence of being older than the internet). Her defense was that it was just the same as when people flash their highbeams at oncoming cars to spread the word about speed traps ahead.

She was flabbergasted to learn that in that state, it's illegal to flash high beams for that purpose.

I also remember a news article about someone going to court to prove that he had a right to post 'Slow Down' signs in his yard, because he was concerned about the neighborhood kids getting hurt. he won, but only because he didn't add 'speed trap ahead' to the sign. The court agreed that it was a free speech right as long as he didn't intentionally interfere with police business.

On the other hand, a civil rights group hung a huge 'speed trap ahead' banner on an overpass. They were arrested, and the cops were amazed to discover that in THAT state, it was not illegal.

I'm sure they've had that oversight corrected since then.

I would think there would be free speech protections for the content of the message, but perhaps not for the time, place and manner of it.

For example, it could be made illegal to stand along the freeway with any sign for safety reasons or somesuch but not to outlaw a specific message on a sign.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I would think there would be free speech protections for the content of the message, but perhaps not for the time, place and manner of it.

I would think that as long as the sign isn't inciting violence or promoting illegal activity (in fact, a "speed trap" sign is doing the opposite), there should be no restriction by the government of one of our most fundamental government-protected rights. The first amendment has very clear language and even minor regulations of it is a slippery slope to fascism.

 

[JonA]

I would think that as long as the sign isn't inciting violence or promoting illegal activity (in fact, a "speed trap" sign is doing the opposite), there should be no restriction by the government of one of our most fundamental government-protected rights. The first amendment has very clear language and even minor regulations of it is a slippery slope to fascism.

I think you're missing the point.

Driving too fast does endanger lives.

When you advertise where the police are waiting to catch people driving too fast, you may cause some to slow down, but you will also cause some to go around - and go around fast.

You are endangering the safety of the public that the police are trying to ensure when they catch speeders (and so deter future speeding).

Why do you think it is an expression of your First Amendment rights to assist criminals in dodging the police?

 

[dismal]

Why do you think it is an expression of your First Amendment rights to assist criminals in dodging the police?

Why do you think it isn't?

My copy of the constitution does not contain this particular exception.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I would think that as long as the sign isn't inciting violence or promoting illegal activity (in fact, a "speed trap" sign is doing the opposite), there should be no restriction by the government of one of our most fundamental government-protected rights. The first amendment has very clear language and even minor regulations of it is a slippery slope to fascism.

I think you're missing the point.

Driving too fast does endanger lives.

When you advertise where the police are waiting to catch people driving too fast, you may cause some to slow down, but you will also cause some to go around - and go around fast.

You are endangering the safety of the public that the police are trying to ensure when they catch speeders (and so deter future speeding).

Why do you think it is an expression of your First Amendment rights to assist criminals in dodging the police?

The popular opinion in this country seems to be that there should be as little regulation on the rights in the Bill of Rights as possible. Signs don't make people go faster, people do.

The sign is not assisting criminals, it is warning criminals about their criminal behaviors. Law-abiding citizens need not fear signs nor the people with signs.

 

[ksen]

I would think that as long as the sign isn't inciting violence or promoting illegal activity (in fact, a "speed trap" sign is doing the opposite), there should be no restriction by the government of one of our most fundamental government-protected rights. The first amendment has very clear language and even minor regulations of it is a slippery slope to fascism.

I think you're missing the point.

Driving too fast does endanger lives.

When you advertise where the police are waiting to catch people driving too fast, you may cause some to slow down, but you will also cause some to go around - and go around fast.

You are endangering the safety of the public that the police are trying to ensure when they catch speeders (and so deter future speeding).

Why do you think it is an expression of your First Amendment rights to assist criminals in dodging the police?

"criminals"

 

[SimpleDon]

Pretty much by definition a speed trap is intended to raise revenue for the town, not to increase the safety of the town by deterring reckless behavior. In Georgia they put a cap on the percentage of the town's total budget that could come from fines, limited the number of times one road could be the subject of a combined, multi-officer campaign, specified the minimum distance between and number of speed limit signs required to lower the speed limit coming into a town, restricted town cops ability to enforce speed limits on interstate and other major highways, eliminated the use of unmarked cars in traffic enforcement, etc., in the efforts to reduce the number of speed traps in the state.

But they also made it legal for radio and TV stations to announce the locations of speed and drunk driving enforcement campaigns.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Policing isn't supposed to be about catching the citizenry but protecting and serving it.

And knowing the police are behind the "Dash In Dash Out" will slow down a lot more people that it will send into dust flying J-turns and rubber burning escapes from the law.

This is the real world not The Rockford Files.

And isn't that supposed to be the point, to get people to drive slower and safer, not to hand out tickets?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

And isn't that supposed to be the point, to get people to drive slower and safer, not to hand out tickets?

It started out that way, but then everyone realized quickly what a valuable source of revenue it had turned into and that they were able to fund municipal programs without raising taxes by repurposing it into a cash grabbing tool.

 

[arkirk]

And isn't that supposed to be the point, to get people to drive slower and safer, not to hand out tickets?

It started out that way, but then everyone realized quickly what a valuable source of revenue it had turned into and that they were able to fund municipal programs without raising taxes by repurposing it into a cash grabbing tool.

I live in North Hollywood where we have all sorts of police money raising ploys of the type we have been discussing here. Parking meters in a wide circle around the post office and the Metro Station...with a parking lot for the metro. I don't know how they decide the park and riders aren't just avoiding the brand new parking meters on the streets here. They are equipped with credit card readers and parking enforcement is a swarm of motorized meter monitors. The city recently lowered the fees for parking violations but there will definitely be a lot more of them considering the proliferation of parking meters...on many quiet, non commercial streets.

So we worry about the wrongness of the past and just see it morphing into another form. L.A. cops are hard on black and brown people. There really is no improvement in the function of L.A. cops, so the past is just part of a progression of wrongs. You take away one and immediately get another wrong and the cop is an equally sticky ass hole.

 

[BH]

I thank everyone for their opinions but was hoping someone in the legal profession was here that could answer the questions I asked.

 

[bilby]

I thank everyone for their opinions but was hoping someone in the legal profession was here that could answer the questions I asked.

I am not in the legal profession, but I am pretty certain that there is no law that says any private citizen is obliged to help someone whose house has burned down.

People do that because they are sympathetic and empathetic, not because the law says they must.

If someone's home burns down and he was widely disliked, he can't expect any help from his neighbours.

If there is a government body tasked with assisting people in such circumstances, then the people who work for that body may be obliged to do their job, and provide governmental assistance, regardless of their personal feelings. But apart from that, why would the law be involved?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Is this what you are talking about?

A  duty to rescue is a concept in tort law that arises in a number of cases, describing a circumstance in which a party can be held liable for failing to come to the rescue of another party in peril. In common law systems, it is rarely formalized in statutes which would bring the penalty of law down upon those who fail to rescue. This does not necessarily obviate a moral duty to rescue: though law is binding and carries government-authorized sanctions, there are also separate ethical arguments for a duty to rescue that may prevail even where law does not punish failure to rescue.

 

[Deepak]

Is this what you are talking about?

A  duty to rescue is a concept in tort law that arises in a number of cases, describing a circumstance in which a party can be held liable for failing to come to the rescue of another party in peril. In common law systems, it is rarely formalized in statutes which would bring the penalty of law down upon those who fail to rescue. This does not necessarily obviate a moral duty to rescue: though law is binding and carries government-authorized sanctions, there are also separate ethical arguments for a duty to rescue that may prevail even where law does not punish failure to rescue.

Even when they're codified in the statutes they're almost never enforced, outside of episodes of Seinfeld.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MECtoQ9YL3Q[/YOUTUBE]

As far as the question in the OP, I think there's some ambiguity that makes it tough to answer, but the way I read the question the immediate emergency situation has passed - that is the help is asked for after the fire not during the fire. In this case even if someone took a very broad reading of Good Samaritan laws they'd be hard pressed to put legal pressure on a refusal to help.

The moral question I can't answer for anyone but myself, but I don't think past crimes or racist beliefs warrant starvation and homelessness. I would help to ensure the affected person at least had basic necessities like food and clothes. Who knows - maybe that would be the prompt to lighten a dark heart.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The moral question I can't answer for anyone but myself, but I don't think past crimes or racist beliefs warrant starvation and homelessness. I would help to ensure the affected person at least had basic necessities like food and clothes. Who knows - maybe that would be the prompt to lighten a dark heart.

I doubt it. He'd probably just be complaining that one of the poor negro families got a fresher can of spam than he did.

 

[Deepak]

The moral question I can't answer for anyone but myself, but I don't think past crimes or racist beliefs warrant starvation and homelessness. I would help to ensure the affected person at least had basic necessities like food and clothes. Who knows - maybe that would be the prompt to lighten a dark heart.

I doubt it. He'd probably just be complaining that one of the poor negro families got a fresher can of spam than he did.

It's certainly possible - probably even likely, but I'd be willing to take the risk.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I doubt it. He'd probably just be complaining that one of the poor negro families got a fresher can of spam than he did.

It's certainly possible - probably even likely, but I'd be willing to take the risk.

And it's nice to take the risk and your willingness to do so shows that you're a better person than he is. I'm just saying that you shouldn't really get your expectations too high about how he'll end up reacting.