Quoted: I think they both suck. Who the hell goes to the ER to get treated for a bruise?  Is there even a treatment for a goddamn bruise?

Someone looking for a lawsuit. And yeah, there's a treatment for a bruise---$1,000,000

Quoted: Quoted: I think they both suck. Who the hell goes to the ER to get treated for a bruise?  Is there even a treatment for a goddamn bruise? Someone looking for a lawsuit. And yeah, there's a treatment for a bruise---$1,000,000

My chiropractor calls it "the green poultice."

reguardless of all that.

this lady will soon be a rich woman, thanks to this.

She'll be saying
"where's my suitcase!", you'll ask "what suitcase", as she doesn't have one in her hand

the suitcase I'll need to carry all the money from another overzelous cop.



Wave, all due respect, you're annalogy is what's wrong with the police today, it's too easy to waste "10 hours together" for this kind of petty BS, instead of actually finding a "real" criminal.

How many people do ya figure were robbed, raped, whatever in that "10 hours" in the general area of that bus stop?

yes, she shouldn't have gotten and attitude, Agreed. but let's be for real here. What a waste of the cops time, and the almighty tax $$$


Chris

do you feel the same way about the Harley rider ripping past the house or at idle ?

should he be arrested too?


Chris

Quoted: Quoted: [ You're such a lawyer dude. First lets look at your statement. I didn't hear any mention of a bull horn in the story, not the discussion of illegal activites. (pedophilia) I didn't hear about anyone yelling directly into someones ear or face. Firewroks are legislated in most places. You just cited a slew of activities that IN NO WAY relate to the story. So they're not even close to the same. It's a pregnant lady on a cell phone dude. If your wife was pregnant (or not for the matter) and she was being "rude" I guess you'd rally for the cops right to push her down? Get real dude. We get your point but the comparisons and drama are overkill. You're right. My point is that I can't stand people inflicting themselves on others - thumping rap at red lights (or down the street in front of my house at 10 PM), shrieking at each down the block, et c. Too bad it was a pregnant woman, but I'm glad to see a selfish lout paying for it.

I wonder if she did the "head wag"...

around this area, that's the norm it seems
I wasn't speaking of all of the police for sure.

sorry if that was inferred.

Chris

Quoted: Oh, I hear you on that Virginia22...trust me I got better things to do than waste my time on some bitch with a bad attitude but sometimes you just have to step up and give people an attitude adjustment. I'm not speaking for all LEO's, just me.

Quoted: do you feel the same way about the Harley rider ripping past the house or at idle ? should he be arrested too? Chris

It's OK with me if he's cited for excessive noise or breach of the peace, and if he wants to get wound up and tell the cop that the cop has no right to tell him how loud his pipes can be, he can go to jail without hurting my feelings. The biker can't hear me driving past his house or idling beside him in traffic. Why should I have to listen to his shit?

If people have no obligation to avoid annoying or interfering with others, nobody has any right to peace. People don't know what I'm saying on the cell phone, what my conversations are about unless they're party to them, or what kind of music is on my car radio. There are places where it's OK to yell, shoot, play loud music, et c. et c. Outside those places, people should do whatever it takes (usually nothing) to keep their bullshit - and their preferences in music and mechanical noise - to themselves.

I am sick to death of the "LOOK AT ME" and "FUCK YOU. I'LL SCREAM/PLAY MY MUSIC AT 100 dB/TALK LOUD IF I WANT TO" bullshit that seems to be pervading  society. It's rude and uncivilized, and I wish I had the leisure to track these cockbites down and dose them with their own medicine when they are looking for peace and quiet. "Why am I playing a bagpipe CD at top volume in front of your house at 6:15 AM? Because I was one of the people sitting outside the coffee shop trying to have a conversation when you drove past with Eminem blaring from your car stereo, and then proceeded to get out of the car and scream at your homies up and down the street for ten minutes. How do you like it? I'm just bein' me, man. I'm just livin'. Chill!"

There won't be a lawsuit,  and there won't be a judgement.  Do you guys have any idea how often police deal with people like this?   I lost track LOONG ago about the number of people stating they would sue me into oblivion because of (fill in the blank).  Heck,  there must have been at least half a dozen from the last outdoor concert here.

What ticks me off is that she went to the ER with a non-emergency and tied up THEIR resources.  Whatcha want to bet she refuses to pay the doctor bill?

Quoted: she committed the worst crime of all: Pissing off a cop.

Ding Ding Ding... We have a winner.

She was not arrested because she was talking into her cell phone. She was arrested because she didn't "Respect My Authorita!".

All it would have taken to defuse this situation was a "Sorry, officer' from the loud female.  What is so hard about that?  She did dumb, she got dumb.  Going out of your way to irritate a cop shows a lack of good judgement.  Is it right?  No.  Is it the way it is?  You betcha.  Don't attract police attention and you will live a long, happy, and free life.  Oh, and be nice to 'em when you run into the police in stores and what not.  They've probably already had a crappy day, so don't make it worse.

I wasn't there, and neither was anyone else here.  There is no telling how she was acting when she was arrested.  However, it is uncalled to force a woman with child down to the ground.  You people who complain about people who are using cell phones need to keep in mind that just because it is annoying, it shouldn't be illegal.  Toughen up!

Quoted: Really torn about this one. On the one hand there are too many fucking asstards that think that they are the only person on the planet when they pickup a cell phone.  Me, I like to find a quiet corner and put on the headset.  What I have to say is for the person on the phone, not someone 20 feet away from me. On the other hand I do think the cop may have overreacted a tad, but I can also see some self-centered bitch trying to pull shit on him.  The key is this: The police officer told Aaron, who is five months pregnant, to lower her voice. She told the officer he had no right to tell her how to speak into her cell phone. The officer made a simple request (one that could have been made by ANYONE) and she pulled the "Fuck off, I'm the center of the universe" shit. Many people have no manners and no consideration for ANYONE execpt themselves and that leads to them inserting their foot-in-mouth... which sometimes leads to someone else inserting foot-in-ass.

I have to agree, on one hand, do you really need to force a women down to get her to comply?  But then again, the rude attitude towards the LEO was not necessary either, when he wasn't rude to being with.

Some of you guys are so thin skinned it's rediculous.  Whinning about people annoying you and hoping they get a ticket or arrested, you guys are just weak minded sissys.(not all of you)  Why don't you just lock yourselves up in a small padded room so that no one can annoy you.

Quoted: Been there,  done that. The arrest was applauded by the onlookers. The charge was Disorderly Conduct/Language./Offensive Gesture.

imagine my suprise.

Quoted: Oh, I hear you on that Virginia22...trust me I got better things to do than waste my time on some bitch with a bad attitude but sometimes you just have to step up and give people an attitude adjustment. I'm not speaking for all LEO's, just me.

that is sad.  Piss you off, and you use your authority to give an attitude adjustment.

TXL

Quoted: Some of you guys are so thin skinned it's rediculous.  Whinning about people annoying you and hoping they get a ticket or arrested, you guys are just weak minded sissys.(not all of you)  Why don't you just lock yourselves up in a small padded room so that no one can annoy you.

So are you the guy who yells into his cell phone in front of me on the train?



Thought so.

i cant belive im reading this crap...

some of you people need to grow a thicker skin...

if people want to make asses of themselves in public, thats fine with me... as long as theyre not hurting anyone, its just free entertainment...

person on cellphone talking about their sisters dogs hemmeroid surgery? to me, thats funny...

Quoted: i cant belive im reading this crap... some of you people need to grow a thicker skin... if people want to make asses of themselves in public, thats fine with me... as long as theyre not hurting anyone, its just free entertainment... person on cellphone talking about their sisters dogs hemmeroid surgery? to me, thats funny...

And that's OK. If you enjoy it, enjoy it. Does that mean it's OK to inflict it on people who don't like it? Is there something wrong with leaving people alone and not bothering them?

Quoted: It is annoying when people speak loudly into their cell phones on the Metro. I've cast a glare or two myself. I don't like the idea of a woman being handcuffed over it. A saint she is not, but she doesn't desrve this kind of treatment.  Cops in that area are drunk with power. I am very pro LEO. I'd like to be one myself if my present physical limitaions didn't prevent it.  DC and Maryland are police states.  It's not the fault of the officers, it's the politicians and activist groups that put them in power.

You hit the nail on the head.  LEO's (generalizing I know)  in that area are damn near the definition of JBT's.  

I lived in MD/DC metro area  for nearly 5 years and felt opressed just be being there.  Cops were EVERYWHERE.  And have a very "authoritarian" mentality.  Not there to serve, but the ENFORCE the law.  

Quoted: that is sad. Piss you off, and you use your authority to give an attitude adjustment. TXL Hmmmmn, it's called discretion. Maybe I will maybe I won't. But if you were a cop what would you do then? Ignore the situation? How about if you had several people come up to you and complain about her(I know that didn't happen in this case but suppose it did)...now what? Walk away? If you do, now those people that were complaining about the loudmouth on the phone are calling your supervisor and making civilian complaints against you for not doing your job. They say there's never a cop around when you need one. Right?

so, you have the discretion to use your authority to get back at people who get uppity with you.

Still doesn't make you ANY better.

I know what you have done in your job, and I will have eternal respect for that.
But this attitiude by a cop is not a 'what would you do thing.'  You stated it's what you have done or do, when you feel someone needs and attitude adjustment.  What attitude, that cops are our betters?

It's still sad.

TXL

Quoted: You hit the nail on the head.  LEO's (generalizing I know)  in that area are damn near the definition of JBT's.   I lived in MD/DC metro area  for nearly 5 years and felt opressed just be being there.  Cops were EVERYWHERE.  And have a very "authoritarian" mentality.  Not there to serve, but the ENFORCE the law.

At a beach near me, the policy is rigid enforcement of public drinking laws. Everywhere else in the county, if an officer happens to notice, you'll be told to dump it out unless you're a bum or making an ass of yourself. In that little town, if you step out the front door of a bar with a drink in your hand, you get a citation or a trip to jail if there's any alcohol in the drink. Period. Guess what? Only assholes walk outside with drinks in that town.

Sounds like the MD/DC Metro area is a really bad place to do things like tell the cops to get bent if they ask you stop violating noise/littering/eating ordinances. How hard is it to avoid the problem? The laws don't implicate any constitutional rights, and the police seem to ask for compliance before taking any other action, so stay off the grass, don't eat in the train station, keep your voice down at the bus station, and if a cop says you're breaking the law and asks you to stop, stop.

Quoted: I know what you have done in your job, and I will have eternal respect for that. But this attitiude by a cop is not a 'what would you do thing.'  You stated it's what you have done or do, when you feel someone needs and attitude adjustment.  What attitude, that cops are our betters? It's still sad. TXL

No, in that context, cops are our stand-ins. It makes a lot less trouble for a policeman to say "Sir, you're bothering people/breaking the law/making an ass of yourself" than for the annoyed public to do it. In a better time, people didn't annoy the neighbors because they had to live with them and preferred to have the goodwill of those around them. Telling people they were being a pain in the ass was the cure for obnoxity. It's not that way anymore, so cops step in and do what a disapproving glance from a neighbor used to do.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: that is sad. Piss you off, and you use your authority to give an attitude adjustment. TXL Hmmmmn, it's called discretion. Maybe I will maybe I won't. But if you were a cop what would you do then? Ignore the situation? How about if you had several people come up to you and complain about her(I know that didn't happen in this case but suppose it did)...now what? Walk away? If you do, now those people that were complaining about the loudmouth on the phone are calling your supervisor and making civilian complaints against you for not doing your job. They say there's never a cop around when you need one. Right? so, you have the discretion to use your authority to get back at people who get uppity with you. Still doesn't make you ANY better. I know what you have done in your job, and I will have eternal respect for that. But this attitiude by a cop is not a 'what would you do thing.'  You stated it's what you have done or do, when you feel someone needs and attitude adjustment.  What attitude, that cops are our betters? It's still sad. TXL That's fine. You live life your way and I'll do my job my way. Fair enough?

sure, but it doesn't help the us v them situation at all.

TXL

FWIW, here is what I heard this morning on WTOP, the DC area all-news radio channel:

The Metro PD chief of police, a very bright and well spoken female officer explained that the  perp was yelling on her phone and using XXX language to make her points to whomever she was pissed at.  Needless to say, several of her fellow riders were having a problem with her loud, foul mouth.

Some of her fellow riders attempted to quiet her down, totally without success.  An officer was called.  According to the chief, the officer politely requested Miz Gutter Mouth to tone down her remarks or move to a more isolated location to continue her conversation.  At this point, the perp reportedly told the cop that he was without his legal authority to tell her to "please" refrain from yelling profanities over the phone and that she could and WOULD continue to speak as she wished.  Further, since she was pregnant, there wasn't anything that he, the white oinker was going to do about it.  Paraphasing what I heard...(Again, this is third hand so take it all with a grain of salt!), she basically told the cop to go fuck himself.

When the officer warned her again about being taken into custody if she didn't cease and desist, she again refused to stop her behavior and continued her conversation, again defying the cop.

At this point, he attempted to take her into custody and she grew violent and resisted arrest.  The officer then followed custody protocols and used the mimunum restraint necesary to ensure both his and her safety while taking her into custody.

NOW...she is all over the media and has lawyered up, apparently fully intending to sue the shit out of Washington DC. Metro, the cops and this officer.

As you can plainly see by the reactions from some of the cheesy liberal political denizons of the 'distrit', this is becoming a cause celebre.  I suspect that the City Fathers will buy the woman off...using taxpayer money of course.

I could be all wet but this time it seems that the lawdogs were correct.

It is obvious both from her initial response to the officer and her subsequent emergency room visit that she is a dramq queen and bitch just wanting a settlement.

I see no indication that people are being given citations without being asked to stop the behavior first.  In fact, I am confident that in every case mentioned, the perpetrators went out of their way to be smartasses.

If someone - a cop or private individuals asks you nicley to stop a rude behavior, you should apologize and comply.  How hard is that?

Finally, I don''t question the officer's use of force in such a situation - how else can you cuff a resisting, violent woman without risking the safety of yourself and the other passengers?

I think she will win any case put forth (if she is willing to take it far enough).  Her first amendment rights appear to have been violated.

Freedom of speech means you have the right to make a fool of yourself, and offend others at the same time.

She was arrested because of the CONTENT of the speech.  She did not yell FIRE in a crowded theater, with the intent to cause others bodily or psychological harm.  If she was yelling, "DID YOU SEE HOW THE REDSKINS PLAYED THIS WEEKEND?"  would she have been arrested?

Did the cop put some sound meter on her and determine a decibel level and is there a clear ordinance against going over that level with UN-AMPLIFIED voice?  I doubt it.

So what if other people complain?  People complain about your right to have AR-15s.

Some of you guys are plain hypocrites.  You want the rights YOU WANT TO ENJOY left alone.  If something bothers you, WHO CARES ABOUT THE OTHER GUY's RIGHTS.

And this woman was CUSSING?  And some of you foul mouths are complaining?  When some of your posts contain a derivative of the F-WORD in nearly every case?

SHE has freedom of speech on public property.

You DO NOT HAVE FREEDOM or the RIGHT TO SHUT PEOPLE UP WHEN THEY SAY THINGS YOU DON'T LIKE.  Neither does a police officer.  In fact, the officer may be PERSONALLY LIABLE  under federal law.

So some of your tender ears might have to listen to some foul mouth talking too loud on her cell phone.

That is a very small price to pay for FREEDOM.

Sounds like a dumb ass drama queen.

Quoted: I think she will win any case put forth (if she is willing to take it far enough).  Her first amendment rights appear to have been violated. Freedom of speech means you have the right to make a fool of yourself, and offend others at the same time. She was arrested because of the CONTENT of the speech.  She did not yell FIRE in a crowded theater, with the intent to cause others bodily or psychological harm.  If she was yelling, "DID YOU SEE HOW THE REDSKINS PLAYED THIS WEEKEND?"  would she have been arrested? Did the cop put some sound meter on her and determine a decibel level and is there a clear ordinance against going over that level with UN-AMPLIFIED voice?  I doubt it. So what if other people complain?  People complain about your right to have AR-15s. Some of you guys are plain hypocrites.  You want the rights YOU WANT TO ENJOY left alone.  If something bothers you, WHO CARES ABOUT THE OTHER GUY's RIGHTS. And this woman was CUSSING?  And some of you foul mouths are complaining?  When some of your posts contain a derivative of the F-WORD in nearly every case? SHE has freedom of speech on public property. You DO NOT HAVE FREEDOM or the RIGHT TO SHUT PEOPLE UP WHEN THEY SAY THINGS YOU DON'T LIKE.  Neither does a police officer.  In fact, the officer may be PERSONALLY LIABLE  under federal law. So some of your tender ears might have to listen to some foul mouth talking too loud on her cell phone. That is a very small price to pay for FREEDOM.

Where's my shovel? First Amd. rights are subject to reasonable restrictions as to time, place, and manner of expression. That's why there are perfectly constitutional noise ordinances, and why you can be arrested for shouting purely political words in the midst of Kerry's speech in a public park. Apparently, it's illegal to talk loudly enough to disturb others in that bus station or whatever it is.

The analogy to ownership of ARs is a false one. The possession of the rifle, or even shooting it in an appropriate place implicates no one else's rights. Now, if you want to shoot your AR in the bus terminal, you're going to have a problem. The woman can yell at her boyfriend or whomever it was while on the phone in her office or home, and [surprise] unless she's loud enough to bother the neighbors, she'll have no problem.

The right in question, both as to gun owners and as to the other people in that bus station, is one you glossed over: the right to be let alone. That is not the right to intrude on other people's right to peace and quiet and get away with it, but the right to go about peaceable pursuits that don't intrude on other people's peaceable pursuits.

I guess you think I have the right to practice fly fishing on the municipal softball diamond during a game, huh? Or to play my Johnny Cash CD at full volume on a boom box at the city jazz festival in the park during the concert? How about if I quietly take a shit in the middle of the street in front of your house while your mother is in your front yard playing with your kids? I do have the right to shit, don't I? Therefore, according to you, I can shit when and where I want.

Quoted:

Where's my shovel? First Amd. rights are subject to reasonable restrictions as to time, place, and manner of expression. That's why there are perfectly constitutional noise ordinances, and why you can be arrested for shouting purely political words in the midst of Kerry's speech in a public park. Apparently, it's illegal to talk loudly enough to disturb others in that bus station or whatever it is.

An officer can arrest anyone for anything if they want to make some charge.  Funny how all the charges against those folks for "shouting" at other's political rallies are virtually always dropped.  I say "virtually always", because I have never heard of a person actually being convicted.  In every case I have read about the charges have been dropped EVERY TIME.  

Reasonable restrictions?  Of course.  But you are ignorant of constitutional law concerning these matters.  With VERY FEW EXCEPTIONS restrictions have to be content neutral.  As I mentioned, if she had been speaking JUST AS LOUD, but said other words, no arrest would have been made.

And why do you say it is illegal to talk loudly on the cell phone?  Because some bozo arrested her.  That's why.  No other reason.  Do you think all arrests are appropriate and the party is always guilty?  Well then, why are we wasting all this money on courts, attorneys, judges, etc?

The analogy to ownership of ARs is a false one. The possession of the rifle, or even shooting it in an appropriate place implicates no one else's rights. Now, if you want to shoot your AR in the bus terminal, you're going to have a problem. The woman can yell at her boyfriend or whomever it was while on the phone in her office or home, and [surprise] unless she's loud enough to bother the neighbors, she'll have no problem.

You claim it is a false analogy because you FEEL LIKE saying it is a false analogy.  The analogy is spot on. The fact that you may own an AR15 OFFENDS PEOPLE, does it not?   The analogy is not false it is simply inconvenient for you, so you say it is false.  A public bus terminal and the areas surrounding it is a PUBLIC PLACE.  It is NOT private property and your having her yell at her boyfriend in a PRIVATE NEIGHBORHOOD is NOT a similar circumstance.  Now speech can be regulated around hospitals and a FEW other SELECT areas, but the public BUS station?  Where the decibel level from the BUSES drown her out?  No way.

The right in question, both as to gun owners and as to the other people in that bus station, is one you glossed over: the right to be let alone. That is not the right to intrude on other people's right to peace and quiet and get away with it, but the right to go about peaceable pursuits that don't intrude on other people's peaceable pursuits.

The "right to be let alone"?  Just where is that in the US Constitution? You would make a great liberal.  You have no right to be "let alone" in a PUBLIC PLACE.  So in typical, superior, liberal fashion you a) make a specific first amendment right DISAPPEAR and b) come up with a right to be "left alone" which appears no where in the constitution.

I guess you think I have the right to practice fly fishing on the municipal softball diamond during a game, huh? Or to play my Johnny Cash CD at full volume on a boom box at the city jazz festival in the park during the concert? How about if I quietly take a shit in the middle of the street in front of your house while your mother is in your front yard playing with your kids? I do have the right to shit, don't I? Therefore, according to you, I can shit when and where I want.

Perhaps you are simply too ignorant to have an intelligent conversation about this matter.  The RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH is there for you to READ, friend.  There is no right to practice fly fishing on public softball diamonds.  There is no right to play Johnny Cash records.  There is no right to relieve your bowels anywhere you choose.

You sir, are a great example of public school education and  a poor example of an apologist for the police state.

Quoted: Quoted: Where's my shovel? First Amd. rights are subject to reasonable restrictions as to time, place, and manner of expression. That's why there are perfectly constitutional noise ordinances, and why you can be arrested for shouting purely political words in the midst of Kerry's speech in a public park. Apparently, it's illegal to talk loudly enough to disturb others in that bus station or whatever it is. An officer can arrest anyone for anything if they want to make some charge.  Funny how all the charges against those folks for "shouting" at other's political rallies are virtually always dropped.  I say "virtually always", because I have never heard of a person actually being convicted.  In every case I have read about the charges have been dropped EVERY TIME.   Reasonable restrictions?  Of course.  But you are ignorant of constitutional law concerning these matters.  With VERY FEW EXCEPTIONS restrictions have to be content neutral.  As I mentioned, if she had been speaking JUST AS LOUD, but said other words, no arrest would have been made. And why do you say it is illegal to talk loudly on the cell phone?  Because some bozo arrested her.  That's why.  No other reason.  Do you think all arrests are appropriate and the party is always guilty?  Well then, why are we wasting all this money on courts, attorneys, judges, etc? The analogy to ownership of ARs is a false one. The possession of the rifle, or even shooting it in an appropriate place implicates no one else's rights. Now, if you want to shoot your AR in the bus terminal, you're going to have a problem. The woman can yell at her boyfriend or whomever it was while on the phone in her office or home, and [surprise] unless she's loud enough to bother the neighbors, she'll have no problem. You claim it is a false analogy because you FEEL LIKE saying it is a false analogy.  The analogy is spot on. The fact that you may own an AR15 OFFENDS PEOPLE, does it not?   The analogy is not false it is simply inconvenient for you, so you say it is false.  A public bus terminal and the areas surrounding it is a PUBLIC PLACE.  It is NOT private property and your having her yell at her boyfriend in a PRIVATE NEIGHBORHOOD is NOT a similar circumstance.  Now speech can be regulated around hospitals and a FEW other SELECT areas, but the public BUS station?  Where the decibel level from the BUSES drown her out?  No way. The right in question, both as to gun owners and as to the other people in that bus station, is one you glossed over: the right to be let alone. That is not the right to intrude on other people's right to peace and quiet and get away with it, but the right to go about peaceable pursuits that don't intrude on other people's peaceable pursuits. The "right to be let alone"?  Just where is that in the US Constitution? You would make a great liberal.  You have no right to be "let alone" in a PUBLIC PLACE.  So in typical, superior, liberal fashion you a) make a specific first amendment right DISAPPEAR and b) come up with a right to be "left alone" which appears no where in the constitution. I guess you think I have the right to practice fly fishing on the municipal softball diamond during a game, huh? Or to play my Johnny Cash CD at full volume on a boom box at the city jazz festival in the park during the concert? How about if I quietly take a shit in the middle of the street in front of your house while your mother is in your front yard playing with your kids? I do have the right to shit, don't I? Therefore, according to you, I can shit when and where I want. Perhaps you are simply too ignorant to have an intelligent conversation about this matter.  The RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH is there for you to READ, friend.  There is no right to practice fly fishing on public softball diamonds.  There is no right to play Johnny Cash records.  There is no right to relieve your bowels anywhere you choose. You sir, are a great example of public school education and  a poor example of an apologist for the police state.

Wanna compare sheepskins and experience, genius boy?

No need.  You have already exhibited your expertise.  And if you are going to respond like a juvenile, go argue with children.

Quoted: that is sad. Piss you off, and you use your authority to give an attitude adjustment. TXL Hmmmmn, it's called discretion. Maybe I will maybe I won't. But if you were a cop what would you do then? Ignore the situation? How about if you had several people come up to you and complain about her(I know that didn't happen in this case but suppose it did)...now what? Walk away? If you do, now those people that were complaining about the loudmouth on the phone are calling your supervisor and making civilian complaints against you for not doing your job. They say there's never a cop around when you need one. Right?

Wave, you might be well advised to ignore it.  

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law



This  statute makes it a crime for any person acting under  color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom  to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any  person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured  or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance,  regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person  to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment  of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her  color or race.

Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal,  state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority,  but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority;  provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color  of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting  or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition  includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors,  Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons  who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and  if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or  threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or  imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include  kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to  commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under  this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may  be sentenced to death.

Federal Court of Appeals, Florida, 1974: Public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because ideas are themselves of offensive to some of their hearers. West's F.S.A. 877.03; U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. I (Wiegand v. Seaver, 504 F. 2d. 303).

Federal Court of Appeals, Indiana, 1974: Freedom of expression (does not mean freedom to express only approved ideas; it means freedom to express any idea. (Perry v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. 499 F. 2d. 797).

Federal Court of Appeals, District of Colubia, 1977: The Constitution mandates that access to the streets, sidewalks, parks, and other similar public places for purpose of exercising first amendment rights cannot be denied broadly and absolutely. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. I (Washington Mobilization Committee v. Cullinane, 566 F. 2d. 107, 184 U. S. App. D. C. 215).

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin, April 30, 1970: An ordinance that proscribes conduct that tends to "disturb or annoy others" is both vague and overbroad. The constitutionally protected exercise of free expression frequently causes a disturbance, for the very purpose of the first amendment is to stimulate the creation and communication of new, and therefore, often controversial ideas. The prohibition against conduct that tends to disturb another would literally make it a crime to deliver an unpopular speech that resulted in a "disturbance." Such a restriction is a clearly invalid restriction of constitutionally protected free expression. (Gardner v. Ceci, 312 F. Supp. 516/ see also Landry v. Daley, 280 F. Supp. 968, N.D. 111. 1968).

Federal Court of Appeals, Virginia, 1982: Reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on free expression and their enforcement cannot he based on content of speech thereby restricted.  A compelling governmental interest unrelated to speech must he served by restriction on speech.  Ordinance containing restrictions on free expression must be drawn with narrow specificity to be no more restrictive than necessary to secure such interest.  Adequate alternative channels of communication must be left open by restrictions on free expression. Davenport v. City of Alexandria, Virginia, 683 F. 2d. 853, on rehearing 710 F. 2d. 148. Also, see Salahuddin v. Carlson, 523 F. Supp. 314.).