Woman jailed for refusing to remove head scarf in court.

[Retmilleo909]

http://www.11alive.com/news/local/st...storyid=124880

Civil rights activists have gathered in Douglas county Georgia to protest the treatment of a black Muslim woman who was jailed for refusing to remove her headscarf in court.

[TXCharlie]

That's the same as forcing her to bare her boobies... I learned that in Cultural Diversity class.

[Norm357]

She was not arrested for failure to remove her head dress. She was arrested for cussing out a Deputy and calling the Judge a racist mother fucker.

But never let facts get in the way.

[Retmilleo909]

She was not arrested for failure to remove her head dress. She was arrested for cussing out a Deputy and calling the Judge a racist mother fucker.

But never let facts get in the way.

Deputies, all LEO's and judges consider being cussed out and called Mother F - - kers as all part of the job, but not removing a cap, hat, scarf or head dress in any court of law is a big "NO NO!!"

[Norm357]

Deputies, all LEO's and judges consider being cussed out and called Mother F - - kers as all part of the job, but not removing a cap, hat, scarf or head dress in any court of law is a big "NO NO!!"

I am just relaying information from the Sheriffs news confrence last night. I was upset that the news bleeped out mother fucker.

[TXCharlie]

I am just relaying information from the Sheriffs news confrence last night. I was upset that the news bleeped out mother fucker.

Selective editing - If the deputies had cussed at her, they might have aired that.

[Norm357]

Selective editing - If the deputies had cussed at her, they might have aired that.

Truf

[ChesCopPodz]

No, she was jailed for calling the JUDGE that. We all know that judges expect us to have to put up with being sworn at, but someone swears at a judge, hell has no fury

[Five-0]

No, she was jailed for calling the JUDGE that. We all know that judges expect us to have to put up with being sworn at, but someone swears at a judge, hell has no fury

Ding, ding, ding!!! +1

[Rhino]

A judge ordered Valentine to serve 10 days in jail for contempt of court after she refused to remove her traditional Muslim scarf, then uttered an expletive.

I'm withholding judgement. If a Judge gave her an unlawful order, IMO she had every right to express her opinion. Especially if the judge is, in fact, a racist mother fucker.

Cussing deputies or police or any other LEO is not a crime.

[Five-0]

A judge ordered Valentine to serve 10 days in jail for contempt of court after she refused to remove her traditional Muslim scarf, then uttered an expletive.

I'm withholding judgement. If a Judge gave her an unlawful order, IMO she had every right to express her opinion. Especially if the judge is, in fact, a racist mother fucker.

Cussing deputies or police or any other LEO is not a crime.

Section 13A-11-7

Disorderly conduct.

(a) A person commits the crime of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:
(1) Engages in fighting or in violent tumultuous or threatening behavior; or
(2) Makes unreasonable noise; or
(3) In a public place uses abusive or obscene language or makes an obscene gesture; or
(4) Without lawful authority, disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons; or
(5) Obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic, or a transportation facility; or
(6) Congregates with other person in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse.
(b) Disorderly conduct is a Class C misdemeanor.

Seems pretty simple to me.

[Terminator]

Cussing deputies or police or any other LEO is not a crime.

§ 14‑288.4. Disorderly conduct. (NC General Statute, Chapter 14)

(a) Disorderly conduct is a public disturbance intentionally caused by any person who does any of the following:
(1) Engages in fighting or other violent conduct or in conduct creating the threat of imminent fighting or other violence.
(2) Makes or uses any utterance, gesture, display or abusive language which is intended and plainly likely to provoke violent retaliation and thereby cause a breach of the peace.
(3) Takes possession of, exercises control over, or seizes any building or facility of any public or private educational institution without the specific authority of the chief administrative officer of the institution, or his authorized representative.
(4) Refuses to vacate any building or facility of any public or private educational institution in obedience to any of the following:
a. An order of the chief administrative officer of the institution, or the officer's representative, who shall include for colleges and universities the vice chancellor for student affairs or the vice‑chancellor's equivalent for the institution, the dean of students or the dean's equivalent for the institution, the director of the law enforcement or security department for the institution, and the chief of the law enforcement or security department for the institution.
b. An order given by any fireman or public health officer acting within the scope of the fireman's or officer's authority.
c. If a state of emergency is occurring or is imminent within the institution, an order given by any law‑enforcement officer acting within the scope of the officer's authority.
(5) Shall, after being forbidden to do so by the chief administrative officer, or the officer's authorized representative, of any public or private educational institution:
a. Engage in any sitting, kneeling, lying down, or inclining so as to obstruct the ingress or egress of any person entitled to the use of any building or facility of the institution in its normal and intended use; or
b. Congregate, assemble, form groups or formations (whether organized or not), block, or in any manner otherwise interfere with the operation or functioning of any building or facility of the institution so as to interfere with the customary or normal use of the building or facility.
(6) Disrupts, disturbs or interferes with the teaching of students at any public or private educational institution or engages in conduct which disturbs the peace, order or discipline at any public or private educational institution or on the grounds adjacent thereto.
(6a) Engages in conduct which disturbs the peace, order, or discipline on any public school bus or public school activity bus.
(7) Except as provided in subdivision (8) of this subsection, disrupts, disturbs, or interferes with a religious service or assembly or engages in conduct which disturbs the peace or order at any religious service or assembly.
(8) Engages in conduct with the intent to impede, disrupt, disturb, or interfere with the orderly administration of any funeral, memorial service, or family processional to the funeral or memorial service, including a military funeral, service, or family processional, or with the normal activities and functions occurring in the facilities or buildings where a funeral or memorial service, including a military funeral or memorial service, is taking place. Any of the following conduct that occurs within one hour preceding, during, or within one hour after a funeral or memorial service shall constitute disorderly conduct under this subdivision:
a. Displaying, within 300 feet of the ceremonial site, location being used for the funeral or memorial, or the family's processional route to the funeral or memorial service, any visual image that conveys fighting words or actual or imminent threats of harm directed to any person or property associated with the funeral, memorial service, or processional route.
b. Uttering, within 300 feet of the ceremonial site, location being used for the funeral or memorial service, or the family's processional route to the funeral or memorial service, loud, threatening, or abusive language or singing, chanting, whistling, or yelling with or without noise amplification in a manner that would tend to impede, disrupt, disturb, or interfere with a funeral, memorial service, or processional route.
c. Attempting to block or blocking pedestrian or vehicular access to the ceremonial site or location being used for a funeral or memorial.
As used in this section the term "building or facility" includes the surrounding grounds and premises of any building or facility used in connection with the operation or functioning of such building or facility.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, any person who willfully engages in disorderly conduct is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.
(c) A person who commits a violation of subdivision (8) of subsection (a) of this section is guilty of:
(1) A Class 2 misdemeanor for a first offense.
(2) A Class 1 misdemeanor for a second offense.
(3) A Class I felony for a third or subsequent offense. (1969, c. 869, s. 1; 1971, c. 668, s. 1; 1973, c. 1347; 1975, c. 19, s. 4; 1983, c. 39, s. 5; 1987, c. 671, s. 1; 1993, c. 539, s. 189; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c); 2001‑26, s. 2; 2006‑169, s. 1.)

[Captain America]

Section 13A-11-7

Disorderly conduct.

(a) A person commits the crime of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:
(1) Engages in fighting or in violent tumultuous or threatening behavior; or
(2) Makes unreasonable noise; or
(3) In a public place uses abusive or obscene language or makes an obscene gesture; or
(4) Without lawful authority, disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons; or
(5) Obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic, or a transportation facility; or
(6) Congregates with other person in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse.
(b) Disorderly conduct is a Class C misdemeanor.

Seems pretty simple to me.

Our Disturbing the Peace statue is similar here in Louisiana.The Louisiana Supreme Court has ruled that a law enforcement officer's peace can't be disturbed. However if a person the Courts actually care about is present(civillians) then the statue has been violated and an arrest may be made.

[Terminator]

Also...

§ 14‑197. Using profane or indecent language on public highways (NC General Statute, Chapter 14)

If any person shall, on any public road or highway and in the hearing of two or more persons, in a loud and boisterous manner, use indecent or profane language, he shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.

[Rhino]

I'm not talking about being loud and boisterous. I'm not talking about disrupting anything.

If I, as a free citizen, walked up to a police officer and said "Fuck your mama". That is not a crime. It's me excercising my 1st amendment right to free speech and if you arrest me for it, I will own you, your department, and city/county you work for.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[lewisipso]

I beg to differ. Utilizing the jurisdiction where Term is posting the law from it is a crime based on the definition. Even the statue title claims profane or indecent language.

[Five-0]

If I, as a free citizen, walked up to a police officer and said "Fuck your mama". That is not a crime. It's me excercising my 1st amendment right to free speech and if you arrest me for it, I will own you, your department, and city/county you work for.

You better make damn sure no one hears you besides me or assisting officers. I have never, I REPEAT NEVER, lost a disorderly conduct charge. I have also never charged anyone with cussing me up and down while in the back of my patrol car or when we were the only people present.

[countybear]

I'm not talking about being loud and boisterous. I'm not talking about disrupting anything.

If I, as a free citizen, walked up to a police officer and said "Fuck your mama". That is not a crime. It's me excercising my 1st amendment right to free speech and if you arrest me for it, I will own you, your department, and city/county you work for.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

If you, as a free citizen, walked up to me and said "Fuck your mama"... you should have a video camera running so that you could capture this priceless moment on film:

YouTube - Flipping off cop

Seriously though, you claim that the first amendment protects you from enforcement action being taken against you when you intentionally provoke another person (you choose a LEO as a representative of the State), however you discount the fact that laws barring profane and provocative verbage have been repeatedly upheld by higher court decisions, whether directed at the police, or private citizens. Disorderly Conduct statutes in many States specifically make it illegal to intentionally provoke another (given a test against the 'reasonable man doctrine').

Now, I consider myself to be a reasonable individual. I am not going to attempt to arrest everyone who disagrees, even profanely, with me. But, in a situation where that individual, in a public place (like a courtroom), loudly and/or profanely creates a disturbance, then he's going to face enforcement action.

Lastly, your walking up to me and saying something (without knowing me personally) with the intent of provoking a response from me, strictly because I am a LEO, creates an interference with my duties as the police, so I'd have to add in a resisting charge for good measure. I'd have to let the courts throw that one out if they saw fit. When I am in the course of official duties, and your conduct displays a specific intent to provoke, interfere, oppose, or obstruct my discharge of those duties, you are (by letter of the law) in violation of my State's statute:

§108. Resisting an officer
A. Resisting an officer is the intentional interference with, opposition or resistance to, or obstruction of an individual acting in his official capacity and authorized by law to make a lawful arrest, lawful detention, or seizure of property or to serve any lawful process or court order when the offender knows or has reason to know that the person arresting, detaining, seizing property, or serving process is acting in his official capacity.
B.(1) The phrase "obstruction of" as used herein shall, in addition to its common meaning, signification, and connotation mean the following:
(a) Flight by one sought to be arrested before the arresting officer can restrain him and after notice is given that he is under arrest.
(b) Any violence toward or any resistance or opposition to the arresting officer after the arrested party is actually placed under arrest and before he is incarcerated in jail.
(c) Refusal by the arrested or detained party to give his name and make his identity known to the arresting or detaining officer or providing false information regarding the identity of such party to the officer.
(d) Congregation with others on a public street and refusal to move on when ordered by the officer.
(2) The word "officer" as used herein means any peace officer, as defined in R.S. 40:2402, and includes deputy sheriffs, municipal police officers, probation and parole officers, city marshals and deputies, and wildlife enforcement agents.
C. Whoever commits the crime of resisting an officer shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or be imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.

[MacLean]

Contempt of court is an absolute, and has nothing to do with any of the disorderly conduct charges discussed in the last few posts.

This is, in fact, some of what I do in my present assignment.

I happen to agree (mostly) with Rhino about the legality of disorderly conduct as it applies to speech, however lets not compare apples to oranges.

If you irritate a judge, the judge has the absolute authority to order your arrest for contempt. In many states, such an order cannot be appealed.

It has nothing to do with any statute regarding disorderly conduct, and the arrest authority does not depend on probable cause on the officer's part.

[countybear]

Contempt of court is an absolute, and has nothing to do with any of the disorderly conduct charges discussed in the last few posts...

It has nothing to do with any statute regarding disorderly conduct, and the arrest authority does not depend on probable cause on the officer's part.

In regard to the thread's original post, you are entirely correct. The officer arrested the suspect based upon the order of the judge present. No PC needed, such was tantamount to a warrant, in that it was a live remand for contempt.

However, Rhino introduced an entirely new premise, one that is a bit off-topic and does indeed address a 'street' scenario. I responded to that.

Originally posted by Rhino:
If I, as a free citizen, walked up to a police officer and said "Fuck your mama". That is not a crime. It's me excercising my 1st amendment right to free speech and if you arrest me for it, I will own you, your department, and city/county you work for.

Aside from what we personally feel justifies an arrest, let's use caution. We are in a public area of the site, and perhaps having a discussion best suited for verified. I will not allow a verified to (directly or indirectly), encourage, incite, advocate, imply, or suggest that the public 'test' the theory of what an officer can, and cannot do when approached in a provocative way by a private citizen. I do not consider such to be in the best interest of the site.

If you feel adamantly about your disagreement, take it to verified. If you feel passionately about your disagreement, take it to PM's.

If this can be discussed without the above, please proceed.