Discussion for article #233475
Hey, chief, how about, oh I donât know, maybe training your officers in the law? Then again, he probably doesnât care seeing as how the Roberts Supreme Court has ruled that police ignorance of the law doesnât matter.
7 Likes
I have a sneaky suspicion that those officers were totally aware of the law âŚ
8 Likes
100% guaranteed he thought he was creating an opportunity to re-litigate the issue. The GOP/Teatrolls and Christian fundies are all about fabricating lawsuits to try to destroy the principle of stare decisis in this country. Nothing shall âremain decidedâ unless they like it.
4 Likes
Exactly right. And they presumably arrested the men under that law in an attempt to humiliate them publicly. IMO there should be sanctions against police, judges, and prosecutors who force people to defend themselves against this type of bogus charge.
That said, I donât have much sympathy for people who have sex in parks, regardless of their sexuality. How do you suppose some mother is supposed to explain that to her 5-year old? Areas with high sex activity in public parks keep families and others who donât want to see that stuff from being able to use taxpayer-funded resources.
4 Likes
Maybe so; but one thing Iâd be a lot more sure about is that this public apology is being done pursuant to legal advice to the La. police about how theyâre exposed to a civil lawsuit.
One of the many, many crappy things the Republican majority SCOTUS has succeeded in bringing about is a twisting of the original, understandable and practically enforceable line of legal authority that holds employer companies responsible as âprincipalâ for the bullshit things done by the managers and authorized employees of those companies. The new regime seems to imply, particularly with public agencies like law enforcement, that unless the public agency somehow formally passed an eyes-wide-open policy, such as in this case, to effectively positively direct the arrest of people having sex with a person of the same gender, then the agency itself may not be held vicariously liable for the harm done, and more practically the damages awarded by a jury.
As a practical matter, tho, the SCOTUS majorityâs twisterama approach has big problems: itâs caused police unions and other police collective bargaining agents and their lawyers to insist on independent vicarious liability coverage for officers successfully sued for these sorts of wrongs. And that, I strongly suspect, is whatâs going on here: the La. force is trying to limit itâs needless exposure to additional damages for failing to acknowledge that something wrong happened, on the basis that to do otherwwise, that is, to REFRAIN from issuing such an apology, would open up the defendants to further damages for willful violation of the constitutional rights of these defendants and aimed at preventing by pre-punishing further and future such wrongs by the La. force and its employee officers.
2 Likes
Not an apology. Nobody is stupid enough to make that âmistakeâ.
5 Likes
Louisiana law enforcement officials are required to undergo annual training, including legal updates.
http://lcle.la.gov/programs/postinservice.asp
Given SCOTUS struck down sodomy laws in the Lawrence v. Texas case in 2003, that would have been part of the annual update to law enforcement officers.
5 Likes
How come I know LA law better than Baton Rouge cops?
6 Likes
Because they have an incentive not to.
2 Likes
You have to have some sympathy for these folks. Theyâre still struggling to come to terms with the 20th century, and their sodomy laws were overturned in the 21st.
6 Likes
These laws are still on the books in Texas too, where the case invalidating them, called Lawrence v. Texas originated, as you might deduce from its caption. Section 21.06 was declared unconstitutional by Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S.Ct. 2472 but remains in the Texas Penal Code, because Texas is run by a bunch of GOP homophobes who refuse to remove it:
"TEXAS PENAL CODE
TITLE 5. OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON
CHAPTER 21. SEXUAL OFFENSES
Sec. 21.06. HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994."
Well, Iâm certainly not an apologist for public sex, but apparently they were in the back seat of a car, presumably in some fairly secluded corner of the park, at 2:00 am. I dunno about you, but neither my kids nor I myself would dream of going up and looking into someoneâs closed and dark car. For starters it could be dangerous, not to mention none of my business. If the police want to check up thatâs fine but that doesnât impact my little kids or myself. As far as public sex is concerned, in just the past 15-20 years acceptable public sexual behavior has become more and more blatant so thereâs not much left to the imagination, from professionals to advertising, teaching our little kids a whole different public âmoralityâ than we learned.
4 Likes
âcrimes against nature,â
They werenât having sex. The one guy was wearing a skin-tight lavender rayon jump suit.
I was born in BR lived their went to school there and moved the hell out of thereâŚthis city is goin to the religious dogs.I havent been back in a very long time and hope to keep up that trend
1 Like