OKC man stopped for anti-obama sign

azmastablasta

New member

Oklahoma City police officer pulls man over for anti-Obama sign on vehicle
By Johnny Johnson - Staff Writer
Published: February 19, 2009
Buzz up!

The police officers who stopped Oklahoma City motorist Chip Harrison and confiscated a sign from his car told him he has a right to his beliefs, but the U.S. Secret Service "could construe this as a threat against President Obama," according to the incident report released this morning.

Capt. Steve McCool says an officer who wrongly pulled a man over last week and confiscated an anti-Barack Obama sign from his vehicle misinterpreted the sign as threatening.


The sign, which read "Abort Obama Not the Unborn," was returned to Harrison later that day, the report said.

Police spokesman Steve McCool said this morning that the sign was taken in error, and Oklahoma City residents should not be worried that their First Amendment rights will be violated. He said a supervisor "intervened and quickly returned the sign" after Harrison called the police department.

"Obviously, it was not a good decision to confiscate the sign," McCool said.

Harrison, who could not be reached for comment this morning, told the officers that in his opinion the words "Abort Obama" meant to impeach him. He told the officers he does not believe in abortion because he is a Christian.

Harrison was stopped while driving a white truck on westbound Interstate 44 at SW 119th at 8:45 a.m. on Feb. 12, according to the police report.

According to Harrison, an official said the Secret Service had been contacted on the matter and had told them the sign was not a threat to the president.

Harrison was asked if he would like to file a complaint. He said he was not sure but would take the paperwork, just in case.

But his run-in with the law wasn't over yet.

''The Secret Service called and said they were at my house," Harrison said.

After talking to his attorney, Harrison went home where he met the Secret Service.

''When I was on my way there, the Secret Service called me and said they weren't going to ransack my house or anything ... they just wanted to (walk through the house) and make sure I wasn't a part of any hate groups."

Harrison said he invited the Secret Service agents into the house and they were "very cordial."

''We walked through the house and my wife and 2-year-old were in the house," Harrison said.

He said they interviewed him for about 30 minutes and then left, not finding any evidence Harrison was a threat to the president.

''I'm still in contact with a lawyer right now," Harrison said. "I don't know what I'm going to do."

Harrison said he feels his First Amendment rights were violated.

McCool said the officer who pulled over Harrison misinterpreted the sign.

''We had an officer that his interpretation of the sign was different than what was meant," McCool said. "You've got an officer who had a different thought on what the word 'abort' meant."

McCool said the sign basically meant Obama should be impeached and it was not a threat.

''(The officer) shouldn't have taken the sign," McCool said. "That was (Harrison's) First Amendment right to voice his concern."

McCool said although the sign should not have been confiscated, the situation was made right in the end.

''We always try to do the right thing and in the end we believe we did the right thing by returning the sign," McCool said.

http://www.newsok.com/okc-officer-pulls-...eadlines_widget
 
a·bort (-bôrt)
v. a·bort·ed, a·bort·ing, a·borts
v.intr.
1. To give birth prematurely or before term; miscarry.
2. To cease growth before full development or maturation.
3. To terminate an operation or procedure, as with a project, missile, airplane, or space vehicle, before completion.
v.tr.
1.
a. To cause to terminate (a pregnancy) prematurely, especially before the fetus is viable.
b. To cause the expulsion of (an embryo or fetus) before it is viable.
c. To give premature birth to (an embryo or fetus).
2. To interfere with the development of; conclude prematurely: abort plans for a corporate takeover.
3. To terminate before completion: abort a trip because of illness; abort a takeoff.
4. To stop the progress of (a disease, for example).
n.
1. The act of terminating an operation or procedure, as with a project, missile, airplane, or space vehicle, before completion.
2. Computer Science A procedure to terminate execution of a program when an unrecoverable error or malfunction occurs.
 
IMHO, the Secret Service showing up at a guys house after they were told the content of the sign, and advised that nothing was wrong...was an attempt at intimidation...

I would have 'cordially' and politely been offended at the implied intimidation...but they would not have been invited into the house...
 
Seems like a pretty non-storey. How many nut-bars does the secret service have to investigate each year? If he actually meant to impeach Obama, why didn't he simply say so .... the secret servie and the cops (LEO), can't guess about these things! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused1.gif

They have a duty to investigate each case and proceed, if need be, on it's merits! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
Quote:
Seems like a pretty non-storey. How many nut-bars does the secret service have to investigate each year? If he actually meant to impeach Obama, why didn't he simply say so .... the secret service and the cops (LEO), can't guess about these things! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused1.gif

They have a duty to investigate each case and proceed, if need be, on it's merits! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif



So you think the guy is a nut-bar to want to be rid of obama? And you defend the violation of the this guys 1st Amendment rights and poorly educated LEO's? [beeep], the libs made movies about assassinating Bush, you pick your arguments on poorly thought out situations.
 
Quote:
I would have 'cordially' and politely been offended at the implied intimidation...but they would not have been invited into the house...



Amen Turtle, if they want in my house they better have some paper work, frankly I really dont give two craps who they are, local, fed or BO's SS gestapo, you want in house......bring a search warrant.

This was brought up in a jury selection process I was involved in around christmas time. You wouldnt believe almost everyone questioned said they didnt have anything to hide and didnt care if LEO searched their cars or houses. I told them I didnt have anything to hide either but wouldnt allow any search of my private property without a warrant as I have constitutional rights.

I was the third person let go, never made it to trial. I guess the DA didnt want a constitutional thinker in the jury box.
 




So you think the guy is a nut-bar to want to be rid of obama? And you defend the violation of the this guys 1st Amendment rights and poorly educated LEO's? [beeep], the libs made movies about assassinating Bush, you pick your arguments on poorly thought out situations.



Ditto +1 !!!!
 
A search for "Color of Law" will reveal several remedies for this sort of thing....the penalties can be very rough!!

Unfortunatly, one has to find a DA willing to "Do what is right"......takes three "lefts"...

Bob
 
Quote:
They have a duty to investigate each case and proceed, if need be, on it's merits!



They might need to expand the Service substantially. I believe I've seen the same "sign" on a bumper sticker. Probably many thousands of them out there.


As to Canadian freedom of speech, here's an excerpt from a U.S. State Department report, lol. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78883.htm


Freedom of Speech and Press . . .

The Supreme Court has ruled that the government may limit free speech in the name of goals such as ending discrimination, ensuring social harmony, or promoting gender equality. It also has ruled that the benefits of limiting hate speech and promoting equality are sufficient to outweigh the freedom of speech clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is the country's bill of rights incorporated in the country's constitution. . . .

Inciting hatred (in certain cases) or genocide is a criminal offense, but the Supreme Court has set a high threshold for such cases, specifying that these acts must be proven to be willful and public. The Broadcasting Act prohibits programming containing any abusive comment that would expose individuals or groups to hatred or contempt. Provincial-level film censorship, broadcast licensing procedures, broadcasters' voluntary codes curbing graphic violence, and laws against hate literature and pornography also impose some restrictions on the media.



Color of Law n. the appearance of an act being performed based upon legal right or enforcement of statute, when in reality no such right exists. An outstanding example is found in the civil rights acts which penalize law enforcement officers for violating civil rights by making arrests "under color of law" of peaceful protestors or to disrupt voter registration. It could apply to phony traffic arrests in order to raise revenue from fines or extort payoffs to forget the ticket.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Quote:
Seems like a pretty non-storey. How many nut-bars does the secret service have to investigate each year? If he actually meant to impeach Obama, why didn't he simply say so .... the secret servie and the cops (LEO), can't guess about these things! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused1.gif

They have a duty to investigate each case and proceed, if need be, on it's merits! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif



You truly are 100% pure lib, aren't ya?
 
Abort-"A procedure to terminate execution of a program when an unrecoverable error or malfunction occurs."

That pretty much nails it right there.

Google Mark Steyn and freedom of speech and see what comes up. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
 
And if he said the same thing about Ronald Regean, how many of you guys would be complaining about it if the secret service checked them out. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused1.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Where was his 1st admendment rights violated? He wasn't held against his will Nor was he charged with any offence! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused1.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
Quote:
And if he said the same thing about Ronald Reagan, how many of you guys would be complaining about it if the secret service checked them out.



As I recall, similar and worst WAS said about Reagan and both Bushes. Certainly inflammatory language (that probably wouldn't be allowed in Canada,/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.giflol) has been repeatedly broadcast and printed. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused1.gif

"Checked them out"? Probably nobody. Doing a walk through (search) of his house and a sit down interview for 30 minutes? Hmmmm /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif

Any "checking out" done by the Service is normally done low key first, without the person even knowing he is under investigation.

To respond that quickly and actually check out the guy's house and officially interview him indicates that (probably) a cop from the OKC PD called the Service, and as a police official (color of law again), informed them of "a probable dangerous threat".




Quote:
Where was his 1st amendment rights violated? He wasn't held against his will Nor was he charged with any offence!




Being "held against his will" would be false imprisonment (or kidnapping). Being charged with an offence without probable cause would be false arrest.

Neither would be 1st amendment violations.

His 1st was violated when the sign was confiscated. That fact is not even in question by the police. Read the story.

Quote:
''(The officer) shouldn't have taken the sign," McCool said. "That was (Harrison's) First Amendment right to voice his concern."





I presume from your "loc" (Nova Scotia) that you are not a U.S. Citizen, so some latitude is probably appropriate, but really, basic research is pretty easy nowadays.
 
Quote:
And if he said the same thing about Ronald Regean, how many of you guys would be complaining about it if the secret service checked them out. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused1.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Where was his 1st admendment rights violated? He wasn't held against his will Nor was he charged with any offence! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused1.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif



If you are going to try to defend the defensless you should at least know what you are talking about. A little study on criminal law would be in order. Come back in a few years when you catch up to speed.
 
Back
Top