From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat May 10 2003 - 11:35:35 MDT
Spike had posted
> http://channels.netscape.com/ns/atplay/content.jsp?file=gonetothedogs3.jsp
which starts
SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) - A Menlo Park man accused of barking at a police
canine...
faces a misdemeanor charge that he willfully and maliciously interfered
with a
Palo Alto police officer's duty by teasing and agitating the officer's
dog.
Dillon, who could face up to a year in county jail and a $1,000 fine if
convicted,
pleaded innocent in a Palo Alto courtroom Tuesday.
and Harvey says
> I don't see the problem. The guy was an idiot for teasing a police dog
> right in front of the policemen. What did he expect to happen?
The guy's good judgment may or may not be the issue. Yes, I suppose
these days everyone should be careful of even glancing at police
officers---that's right, keep your eyes straight, act as if they
weren't there. Because: we are more and more reaching the point,
via a vast profusion of laws and extremely liberal interpretations
of those laws, that the cop can hassle and detain you to almost no
end on any number of pretexts, and there is nothing you can do about
it. He knows it, and you know it.
The defendant's version goes like this (continuing from the URL):
The incident occurred March 5, on Mardi Gras night, when Dillon,
a bartender, and a co-worker were walking in downtown Palo Alto
and passed a group of officers standing by their patrol cars.
According to Dillon's attorney, Donald Tasto, the police dog in
one of the cars was already agitated and barking at other passers-by
when Dillon returned a single "friendly bark". Police cited then
released him.
Of course, if this is true, then this was a *flagrant* abuse of
authority. But even if it weren't, and the men began "offending"
the dog, why didn't the cop or cops go over, stand between them
and the dog, and yell, "Knock it off!"? The reason, simply, is
fear. This latter approach would fail to inspire fear in citizens
when dealing with the police. It's the kind of outdated response
a police officer might have made in 1903, not 2003.
Karen writes
> I agree with you, Harvey. This guy was distracting an officer
> (dog officer) away from his duties. He should be slapped on
> the wrist. It is the equivalent of waving a box of donuts under
> the officer's (human officer) nose while he is on duty and not
> letting him bite one.
Indeed. "Taunting a police officer with a box of donuts" doesn't
need to be on the statutes for it to be a crime. For this too
could be a case of "willfully and maliciously interfering with a
Palo Alto police officer's duty" and might merit "up to a year in
county jail and a $1,000 fine if convicted".
Amara posted "Habits and Attitudes of Free People" by Kyle Standerfer
http://www.strike-the-root.com/3/standerfer/standerfer1.html
I draw your attention to this excerpt from that superb article:
"A free society minimizes the number of bows and curtsies
that a person must perform in daily life... A free society
has no legal caste system -- no officialdom with its pretexts
to bring everyone else to their knees."
There were many other points made by the article that are all too
relevant today, but this one was especially germane.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun May 11 2003 - 16:56:25 MDT