![]() |
| |
| |||||||
| New to LegalMatch Forums? Join our community today |
| Find a Lawyer Now By Category: | |||||||
| Family & Divorce | Criminal Defense | Job & Employment | Personal Injury | ||||
| Real Estate Lawyers | Immigration | Business Lawyers | Other Lawyers | ||||
| LegalMatch is Fast, Free and Confidential | |||||||
| Not Ready To Hire an Expert Lawyer? | Get Online Legal Documents |
![]() |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#11
| |||
| |||
| Talked to the officer (Ossifer?) before court and he assured me he felt it was obscene. We reminded him we were not there to ascertain what HE felt was obscene, but rather to determine what the law defines as obscene. We asked if he had read the law and he stammered a bit but held his ground. We told him we were going to "pick six" and take it to a jury and he will have to admit in court it aroused his 'prurient interests' or dismiss the charge. LOL This may drag on for a year or so but will be worth the wait. |
|
#12
| |||
| |||
| GentleGrace - This sounds like a typical situation where the officer just doesn't understand the law and is confusing language which might be considered crude with language that is "obscene" and appeals to the prurient interest. This is a common misunderstanding and is often a matter of upbringing. When I was a child my mother slapped me for using language in either category. I know nothing about procedure in your state but I would hope that there would be some way to have that issue of law decided before a jury trial. I'm sure you've thought that through already, though. Also, I have to admit that a jury trial sounds like fun. I remember my Constitutional Law professor saying that the best common sense definition of something that "appeals to the prurient interest" is that it "makes you itch in a special way". Getting that across to the jury could be amusing. In one of your earlier posts I felt like you were almost apologizing for criticizing this officer before. You need not have felt that way, at least as far as I am concerned. I too respect the people in uniform and by and large most of them try to do a good job. Also, everyone makes good faith mistakes from time to time. However, abuses of power are inherent in human nature, from police officers to presidents. People talk of the police as the "thin blue line" that separates them from lawlessness. There is truth in that. However, it is lawyers like you and, hopefully, honest judges, who separate us from barbarism. By the way, back on the issue of use of force to repel trespassers, I did a Google search and came up with a case which says that in South Carolina (which is where I gather you practice) reasonable force can be used to repel trespassers (and even deadly force when it escalates to a self defense situation). The case is Silas v. Bowen, 277 F. Supp 314, 317-18 (D.S.C. 1967). This is common law, not statutory, so it is certainly not enough of a basis to tell a client in advance that they can rely on the right to use force, which is rarely a good idea anyway. However, the case could be useful in getting a client out of a hole which he has already dug himself into. Again, good talking with you and good luck on your case and with your other work. |
|
#13
| |||
| |||
| Thank you for the heads up on the case law about the original subject matter in this thread. I will make a point of looking it up and educating myself further. Thank you! I appreciate your comments about my words clarifying my position about the officer in question. There are users who come here and beat a drum of prejudice, so to speak, against this country, against cops, the law, and lawyers, etc. I wanted to be clear I was not speaking ill of an entire group of people based on the irrational or irresponsible actions of a few. A colleague of mine said when he first started practicing, one of his clients testified on the stand that he felt the officer in question in this particular case was the same word that appeared on the bumper sticker in question in my situation. Opposing counsel objected on the grounds it was 'inflamatory' and the judge said he would sustain the objection *if* the lawyer could provide him with another descriptive term that stated the same thing as the word used. Much to my friends delight, they spent the next hour calling the officer every word imaginable---as though they were trying the words on for size. LOL So the jury heard an hour of every adjective imaginable. LOL I'm sorry I missed that. At one point in the discussion yesterday, I laid my folder down on the table between us and it happened to fall opened where there was displayed a brand new bumper sticker identical to the one he forced my friend to remove. It was all coincidental, of course. (smile). I appreciate your input in this forum and hope you will stick around for a long while and continue to contribute. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
County Lawyers | Attorney Search by City
DWI Lawyers | Estate Lawyers | Criminal Lawyers
Expungement Lawyers | Business Lawyers | Government Lawyers | Family Law Lawyers
Real Estate Lawyers | Employment Lawyers | Bankruptcy Lawyers | Foreclosure Lawyers
Personal Injury Lawyers | Child Visitation Lawyers | Child Custody Lawyers
Immigration Lawyers | Landlord/Tenant Lawyers | Defective Product Lawyers | Christian Attorneys
Attorney Referral Services | Intellectual Property Lawyers | Bar Association Lawyers