Disorderly Conduct: DC Police Arrest man who says he hates the police

[Pudge]

Pepin Tuma, a 33-year-old gay man, was discussing the recent arrest (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates1.html) of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates with a few friends as they walked to Cobalt on July 26. At some point in the pre-bar jaunt, the Washington Blade reports, Tuma loudly condemned the alleged bigotry in the case (http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=26502) in a sing-song voice: “I hate the police!” he declared. “I hate the police!”
A D.C. police officer, Tuma says, responded with some hate-speech of his own—and a swift arrest. Second District Officer J. Culp, Tuma says, “charged 40-50 feet” toward him, “pushed him against a transformer box,” arrested him, then told him to “shut up, ******.”

Full Article (http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/30/gay-man-arrested-for-mocking-police-bigotry/) here (warning, strong language).

So... perhaps an officer can respond because I really don't know. What defines 'disorderly conduct'? It seems to be vague and left to the officer's judgment. In all I've read about this, Mr. Tuma was not belligerent or unruly, only mocking. Is it a crime to say you hate the police, or to sing it in a mocking manner?

From every account I've read he was not asked to quiet down, nor was he impeding the flow of pedestrian traffic, and nobody made a complaint.

Mr. Tuma is an attorney in the DC area and could make this very messy for the DC Police Department, especially since the officer who arrested him used an anti-gay slur. As insulted as the officer may have felt by Mr. Tuma's statement, I don't believe he was in the right to arrest him.

Thoughts?

[sgtmac_46]

Full Article (http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/30/gay-man-arrested-for-mocking-police-bigotry/) here (warning, strong language).

So... perhaps an officer can respond because I really don't know. What defines 'disorderly conduct'? It seems to be vague and left to the officer's judgment. In all I've read about this, Mr. Tuma was not belligerent or unruly, only mocking. Is it a crime to say you hate the police, or to sing it in a mocking manner?

From every account I've read he was not asked to quiet down, nor was he impeding the flow of pedestrian traffic, and nobody made a complaint.

Mr. Tuma is an attorney in the DC area and could make this very messy for the DC Police Department, especially since the officer who arrested him used an anti-gay slur. As insulted as the officer may have felt by Mr. Tuma's statement, I don't believe he was in the right to arrest him.

Thoughts?
You would think a lawyer would act with a bit more dignity in public.........but alcohol does a funny thing to people.

Let me ask you question, Pudge........do you think Tuma wanted a confrontation? Because to say something on a crowded 'Pre-bar' street so that a police can hear it over '40 or 50 feet away' is not to do so in a casual manner. ;)

Also, as for the anti-gay slur, keep in mind that is as 'Tuma says'......the same jackass who yelled this crap on a public street.......so his judgment is obviously impaired to begin with.

As for attorney's.......they are NOT GOD! Though some seem to think.

[OldSchoolConservative]

40 or 50 feet is not too far of a distance especially if a person has a voice that carries when they sing. I am not saying that is the case but a possibility. The officer had no Constitutional authority to arrest the man for his speech other than if the man were disrupting the public peace. But in this situation it appears the officer might have been offended which in itself is not legal grounds for an arrest. One good thing about the media attention is that it is bringing a reminder to local law enforcement that United State citizens have federally protected constitutional rights of free speech even if it is speech that officers are offended by. (As long as an individual is not directly impeding an officer from discharging his or her duties) In a free society it is imperative that officers must be held accountable for their actions. I respect law enforcement but somewhere they have gone from "peace officers" to proactive look for anything law enforcement in the last generation. And I believe America is getting fed up with it and maybe one day as a result that law enforcement will revert back to protecting the innocent and going after the true criminals. But I think part of the problem is police officers have become instruments of additional tax revenue in fines for the local municipality they serve.

[CaptainPike]

There are times when jurors can't participate in a case because they have the smallest amount of bias. I can't see how they would even allow an attorney that hates the police to come into a courtroom.

[jimjames418]

It appears he may been interfering with police officers who were conducting a traffic stop. And since "several police cars" were at the scene I don't think it was a routine traffic stop.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/30/AR2009073003955.html)
Pepin Tuma, a lawyer in private practice, said he was walking in the U Street corridor late Saturday with two friends when they came upon several police cars at a traffic stop. Tuma and his friends, also lawyers, had been discussing the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.

"In a singsong voice, a little louder than conversation, I said, 'I hate the police. I hate the police,' " Tuma said.

[captusa]

There are times when jurors can't participate in a case because they have the smallest amount of bias. I can't see how they would even allow an attorney that hates the police to come into a courtroom.

I do not believe an attorney (or a defendant) is expected to be unbiased.

[sgtmac_46]

40 or 50 feet is not too far of a distance especially if a person has a voice that carries when they sing. 40 or 50 feet away is a long way off to get an officers attention on a 'pre-bar' street using a conversational voice......in Dupont Circle, Washington DC, which is packed with people on a summer evening, being the center of night life in the area.

The most LIKELY explanation is that our good lawyers version of events is PURE BULL ****!

[sgtmac_46]

I do not believe an attorney (or a defendant) is expected to be unbiased.

Attorney's are expected to be shills for their clients.

[sgtmac_46]

It appears he may been interfering with police officers who were conducting a traffic stop. And since "several police cars" were at the scene I don't think it was a routine traffic stop.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/30/AR2009073003955.html)

Which, if the police are already dealing with the subjects on a traffic stop, and a crowd, the LAST thing they need is some half-drunk tool inciting the crowd......in which case the Disorderly Conduct charge is PRECISELY the way this should have went.

[captusa]

Attorney's are expected to be shills for their clients.

There are such a thing as prosecuting attornies.
My point is that it is absurd to expect an attorny to be impartial.

[sgtmac_46]

There are such a thing as prosecuting attornies.
My point is that it is absurd to expect an attorny to be impartial.

A prosecuting attorney should be expected to be impartial in a general sense.

As for defense attorneys, they are expected to be advocates for their clients......and to be partial in that sense.

One would expect, however, that they would carry themselves with more dignity than this clown did.

[captusa]

A prosecuting attorney should be expected to be impartial in a general sense.

As for defense attorneys, they are expected to be advocates for their clients......and to be partial in that sense.

One would expect, however, that they would carry themselves with more dignity than this clown did.

Agreed on every point except even an attorney has the right to be stupid.

To quote myself.
The right to be stupid is a basic human right.
Unfortunately too many people act like it's a responsibility.
And I thought the world loves a clown.

[sgtmac_46]

Agreed on every point except even an attorney has the right to be stupid.

To quote myself.
The right to be stupid is a basic human right.
Unfortunately too many people act like it's a responsibility.
And I thought the world loves a clown.

Well......there's the problem......'being' stupid is one thing......acting stupid is another. Attorney's do have a code of conduct and can be disbarred for violating it.....and though it's doubtful this guy isn't likely to face sanctions, attorneys cannot act in just any manner they wish.

[jimjames418]

Well......there's the problem......'being' stupid is one thing......acting stupid is another. Attorney's do have a code of conduct and can be disbarred for violating it.....and though it's doubtful this guy isn't likely to face sanctions, attorneys cannot act in just any manner they wish.
Attorneys are consider "Officers of the Court" and as such have some pretty strict standards of conduct, everywhere, not just in the court room. :think:

[sgtmac_46]

Attorneys are consider "Officers of the Court" and as such have some pretty strict standards of conduct, everywhere, not just in the court room. :think:

Oh, absolutely.......this kind of behavior is pretty unbecoming of an officer of the court......but he won't face any sanctions.

Now, if he were a lawyer in some parts of the US he'd be facing some sanctions.

[gdoane]

Maybe he was just trying to get a beer from Barack Obama.

[FidelisAdMortem]

I thought Dlaw lived in Cali?

I kid, you know I love you, bro.

[Pudge]

It appears he may been interfering with police officers who were conducting a traffic stop. And since "several police cars" were at the scene I don't think it was a routine traffic stop.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/30/AR2009073003955.html)

How is he interfering with them by singing that from 50 feet away?

[Pudge]

There are times when jurors can't participate in a case because they have the smallest amount of bias. I can't see how they would even allow an attorney that hates the police to come into a courtroom.

Attorneys are not jurors or judges. They are advocates for their clients. They're not required to be impartial or unbiased. The only check that they really have is whether or not their bias impedes their ability to make the best case for that client.

An attorney who has a grudge against the police might, for example, specialize in brutality cases, and have a good track record in court against officers accused of brutality whereas someone who is neutral or dispassionate may not.

[Pudge]

40 or 50 feet away is a long way off to get an officers attention on a 'pre-bar' street using a conversational voice......in Dupont Circle, Washington DC, which is packed with people on a summer evening, being the center of night life in the area.

The most LIKELY explanation is that our good lawyers version of events is PURE BULL ****!

There were plenty of witnesses who can corroborate the officer's use of an anti-gay slur, which, even *if* the DC charge was justified, is crossing the line.

[Pudge]

Which, if the police are already dealing with the subjects on a traffic stop, and a crowd, the LAST thing they need is some half-drunk tool inciting the crowd......in which case the Disorderly Conduct charge is PRECISELY the way this should have went.

Pipe down. Move along. A warning. Probably all it would have taken. But no, Officer Culp had to prove that his genitals were bigger because he didn't like being mocked.

I don't do end-runs around free speech and I don't tolerate officers who use slurs when they arrest citizens even if the arrest is justified.

[jimjames418]

How is he interfering with them by singing that from 50 feet away?
It all depends on how many people were around. It could have been seen as attempting to incite the people to further action. Which is illegal everywhere.

IF he was 50 feet away he would have had to be very loud to be heard about the noise of "several police engines".

[Pudge]

Maybe he was just trying to get a beer from Barack Obama.

There has to be an easier way than that! :lol:

[johnrocks]

If the only thing I ever get arrested for is stating my opinion,you'll see me on national news!

[Pudge]

It all depends on how many people were around. It could have been seen as attempting to incite the people to further action. Which is illegal everywhere.

IF he was 50 feet away he would have had to be very loud to be heard about the noise of "several police engines".

That's a stretch, it's not like police cars don't have mufflers. There was likely a lot of ambient noise in Dupont Circle, usually is even without a traffic stop, but it doesn't take much to be heard above the din.

Saying that you "hate the police" being read as inciteful? Really? I don't agree- though to be fair I didn't hear *how* it was sung (the reports all say 'mockingly', not 'menacingly').

And I am actually more bothered by a cop calling someone he is arresting a '******' (anti-gay slur). Tell me, if a police officer arrested a black person for the same reason, disorderly conduct, and did so by slamming him into a transformer and calling him the n-word, what do you think would happen- in Washington DC?

[jimjames418]

Tell me, if a police officer arrested a black person for the same reason, disorderly conduct, and did so by slamming him into a transformer and calling him the n-word, what do you think would happen- in Washington DC?
That might not be a bad idea. It has been a long time since the District has had a good old fire sale. :rolleyes:

j/k

[Talk2Bill]

the officers acted stupidly! :))


assuming the story was true:
if the taunt was in a sign song voice and not so loud in terms decibel levels then the officers violated the law. Taunts and name calling is NEVER grounds for arrest.

[Pudge]

That might not be a bad idea. It has been a long time since the District has had a good old fire sale. :rolleyes:

j/k

HAHAHAAHHAHAHA, oh my inappropriate sides are hurting! :lol: