Talk:Contempt of cop

Article seems to offer a controversial legal opinion as standard?

I'm concerned this article offers one legal opinion. I have heard other "experts" suggest that (depending on the jurisdiction) that arrest is legitimate for behavior described in this article as legal. I think both sides should be represented and I think the controversy over the recent issue indicates there is not a clear delineation as to where freedom of speech ends and disorderly conduct or obstruction of justice begins. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If you mean that, I've removed it, because it's not clear what it contributes to the article, except saying that contempt-of-cop arrests generally constitute misconduct, which is already in the lead.  Sandstein  21:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I've reincorporated it, because it does provide additional perspective from an expert who has worked on both sides of the street. But I have changed the article text to a more factual statement, and moved the quote to the notes. Dhaluza (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In this form, it makes more sense to me. Though if there are reliable authorities who dispute this assessment, as ChildofMidnight says, then they should of course be mentioned.  Sandstein  21:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you will find any reliable authority who questions the primacy of the First Amendment, the gray area comes in what aggrevating factors allow police to use their judgment in serving the greater good. Dhaluza (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

To the original post, I think this is a moot point. Where an arrest is legitimate, it is categorized as such. The popular use of "contempt of cop" is to denote illegitimate conduct. The dividing line in individual cases may be gray, but that is true for so many concepts. Whether or not the Arrest of Henry Louis Gates is in fact justified or not, or whether it is even possible to determine this, does not mean there are two sides to this concept. Even the NRO characterizes "contempt of cop" as an "extralegal offense" Dhaluza (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The Gates arrest is a perfect example that interpretations of the laws and what is or is not an appropriate vary widely. So my point and concern was the Wikipedia not represent that it's okay or legal to mouth off to cops or to refuse to cooperate or to run away, when these may be arrestable or prosecutable offenses in some jurisdictions. I'm not an expert on this area of the law, but it should be made clear that this is a perjorative phrase used in situations where there is an ACCUSATION of improper arrest or harassment. Whether the treatment or arrests are in fact inappropriate or improper is another issue. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree that the Gates arrest is a good example, but not necessarily of "Contempt of cop" (although it has been cited by several writers as a possible explanation, or as you say an accusation). My point was that "contempt of cop" is a stand-alone concept, even if it is impossible to prove it in a particular case (just like "racial profiling"). It is not necessarily pejorative or accusatory, although it may be used that way. It can also be used to classify a specific type of behavior, which has certain salient characteristics, without getting personal. Dhaluza (talk) 01:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this to suggest that “contempt of cop” and racial profiling not be conflated in this article ? It seems to me we're both saying that this article should stick to its nominal topic. JeffConrad (talk) 01:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, they certainly should not be conflated. But some of the references suggest they are related. Dhaluza (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no doubt that nonwhites are cited more frequently for “contempt of cop” (and many other offenses), but is that the topic of this article? In particular, why does Driving While Black belong here? JeffConrad (talk) 05:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

There was an implication that almost any verbal abuse of police is protected speech, and this simply isn't the case, especially in state courts. I've added several references that support both sides of the issue, and arguably are relevant to the arrest of Gates.

This article seems to conflate two distinct issues: “contempt of cop” and racial profiling; I think the article would be better if they were kept separate. The article also seems to be pushing it with regard to WP:NPOV. JeffConrad (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there are two sides to this topic as you say. The "fighting words" exception was actually created by the U.S. Supreme Court, but has been interpreted very narrowly, especially in relation to police officers (see the Poocha cite I added). There are of course two sides to the Gates case, but that is not relevant here, and it should not color how we cover this topic. Dhaluza (talk) 01:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

“Two sides” may not have been the best way to put it. What I was getting at was that lower courts have been quite inconsistent in how they have applied the “fighting words” exception, and it would be very misleading to suggest that almost anything can be uttered to a police officer without consequence. See, e.g., State v. Clay (Minnesota, 1999—unpublished), which held that “while calling the officers ‘white racist motherf**kers’ may be protected, wishing death upon an officer's mother is not.” David Hudson's First Amendment Center article describes several other cases, and notes that sometimes courts do not even consider the question of “fighting words” when deciding to grant a police officer summary judgment on qualified immunity in actions under 42 U.S.C 1983. JeffConrad (talk) 05:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Superfluous articles in “See also”

I'm not sure that the article on Lawson belonged here, but I really don't think Stop and identify statutes belongs, especially without any mention in the article. To be sure, such laws lend themselves to abuse (as probably happened with Lawson), but this article should focus on the main topic rather than going off in every which direction. JeffConrad (talk) 07:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, also with respect to "driving while black".  Sandstein  08:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually moved the driving while black to the see also, retaining just the explanation that it is a similar allusion, without going into the weeds to describe it. Dhaluza (talk) 11:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks appropriate.  Sandstein  14:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Extralegal offense

I'm not sure what we gain by using this term, which seems to be a neologism used only ever in that one source article (see Google). It's a contradiction in terms - an Offence (law) is a violation of a (criminal) law, so something that is wikt:extralegal can't be an offense by definition. If the term is meant to convey that it is not an offense in the eyes of the law, but is sometimes treated as an offence by the police, the rest of the article makes that quite clear already. In other words, per WP:JARGON, we should not use the jargon "Extralegal offense" unless we need it to say something we can't otherwise convey. And if we use it, extralegal offense should likely be a notable concept with its own article.  Sandstein  14:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment that "extralegal offense" is both a neologism and an oxymoron. That is why I changed it to 'extralegal "offense"'. If we had to boil down this whole article to one word which captures the essence of the subject, 'extralegal' would be a good one. Of course, extralegal is an adjective, so it needs to modify a noun, but putting "offense" in quotes (and without a wikilink) makes clear that we are not using it in the usual sense that you cite (and are in fact using it as the cited reference did). Yes, the article does make quite clear that the distinction of "contempt of cop" is that it is outside the law (as opposed to actual disorderly conduct for example), but it does not do that in a word or two. The lede should capture the essence of the subject, and this should be further developed deeper in the text--it's not redundant to say the same thing in different levels of detail. BTW I find your reference to WP:JARGON ironic, since the article is itself about jargon. Dhaluza (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "extralegal offense" captures the idea of the topic well – if one understands the concept, that is, if one understands the rather uncommon word "extralegal" and resolves the internal contradiction of a violation of the law being outside the law. Readers are forced to do these mental gymnastics because it's a neologism and thus unfamiliar. In effect, they're likely to be able do so only after having read the article and being able to imagine what we mean by "extralegal offense". What I mean by this is that the use of this neologism in the lead substantially impairs the accessibility of the article to the casual or lay reader. If we want to use it, we should not assume that readers understand it, but we should explain it at some later point in the article when the nature of "contempt of cop" has already been made clear, such as by: Because people committing "contempt of cop" may be treated as offenders without having committed an offense in the eyes of the law, "contempt of cop" has also been referred to as an "extralegal offense".[ref]  Sandstein  22:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sandstein; the current wording is almost almost our own jargon, something to which we, the elite, are privy, but that may be lost on many readers. I think the suggested rewording would make for a much better lead. JeffConrad (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This sounds to me a bit pedantic. While extralegal may be an uncommon word, I think most readers are familiar with extramarital affair, extrasensory perception, extraterrestrial, etc., so I give most readers enough credit to handle a familiar prefix with a simple suffix. But we can of course add a wiktionary link just in case. I also give readers enough credit to hold the apparent contradiction of 'extralegal "offense"' in the first sentence until reading the second, which contrasts it with "legitimate law enforcement purpose". Again, I agree that we should not accept "extralegal offense" as a neologism per se, but the scare quotes around "offense" handle that, as well as the apparent contradiction. Dhaluza (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Quotation marks?

Is it necessary to put the term "contempt of cop" in quotation marks throughout the article? I have done this for consistency, but it looks strange. Perhaps italics would be more appropriate? Dhaluza (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

“Scare quotes” indicate that a term is used in a nonstandard, ironic, or special sense (Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed, §7.58), which is certainly the way we use the term here. CMoS cautions against overuse, but the alternative would be to write ‘so-called contempt of cop’ at every use, which would be really awkward. But italics would definitely not be right.

The quotes should be removed from contempt of court and Driving While Intoxicated, which are used in their normal senses; however, they are words used as words, so they should be in italics (CMoS §7.62). When “contempt of cop” is used adjectivally, it probably should be hyphenated, though I don't know if the “scare quotes” obviate the need for the hyphens. In Stop and Identify statutes, we used “stop-and-identify” statutes throughout. JeffConrad (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Our own Wikipedia:MOSQUOTE#Quotation marks does not seem to answer this, so following the Chicago Manual of Style's recommendations (as I did without knowing when I wrote the first version of the article) and using quotes makes sense to me. As to hyphenations, I defer to those for which English is a first language or who have copyediting experience.  Sandstein  05:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've made the changes I suggested. Normal practice in American English is to hyphenate compound adjectives that appear before the word they modify. A compound adjective in “scare quotes” is fairly unusual, and I haven't seen a specific example in a major style guide. I made the change here mainly for consistency with Stop and Identify statutes (for which the title obviously violates several rules). See how it looks. JeffConrad (talk) 06:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

After looking at the combination of “scare quotes” and hyphens, the combination looks a bit much. I posed the question to the University of Chicago Press, and they agreed that the quotes suffice to group the words for the reader. If no one objects, I'm going to remove the hyphens I added. JeffConrad (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

One comment on hyphenation of compounds: it's normally done only when the compound is used adjectivally, and only when it appears before the word it modifies. The idea is to make it immediately obvious to the reader that it is a single modifier of what follows. The University of Chicago Press suggested that “scare quotes” suffice to provide this grouping, and I'm inclined to defer to their judgment. Any unnecessary typographical ornament arguably makes an article harder to read. JeffConrad (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The overuse of scare quotes gives the sense the article is taking sides on the issue. It's the equivalent of putting "so-called" in front of every instance of the phrase. If we're talking about the phrase itself, using italics is a possible approach. Also, after the first instance of using scare quotes, any further use for the same term adds nothing, except that the editor is excessively legalistic in writing style. 173.164.136.5 (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the intent was indeed to effectively put so-called in front of every instance of the term—there simply is no such offense as contempt of cop, and I know of no other way to properly so indicate. Were we talking about the term itself, as in the previous sentence, italics would be appropriate. But in most cases, we are talking about the practice rather than the term. I'll concede that the scare quotes can get to seem a bit cluttered after a while. But the same would often be true without them—the phrase would need to be hyphenated when used adjectivally, and editors would then need to be careful to observe the distinction. Perhaps repeated use of scare quotes implies a certain contempt for the practice the phrase describes, but using the phrase without them is arguably just as suggestive of taking the opposite side, and in any event, it implies that there indeed is such an offense.

The situation was similar situation with “stop and identify” statutes; I'm unaware of any law that actually has such a title. In that case, the phrase is always adjectival, so hyphenation would be needed for all instances, and the visual clutter would be essentially the same. There is a key distinction between a “stop and identify” statute and a citation or arrest for “contempt of cop”, however; violation of the former may indeed constitute an offense, regardless of the actual title of the governing law. The latter term, at least as I understand its use in this article, refers primarily to a situation in which a citation has been issued or an arrest made when no law has been violated. JeffConrad (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no such offense, but there is such a concept, and the subjects in this encyclopedia are not just limited to legal offenses. If there is a better (or more neutral) term to use, then lets use it. Otherwise, if you're going to use scare quotes around the word every time, you're emphasizing via repetition by saying "so-called" every time its used; not just overstating the offense is fictional but also possibly implying the concept is fictional. It sounds like a bad debate on cable news, not writing that conforms to WP:NPOV. 173.164.136.5 (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, no disagreement that we're saying “so-called” by using scare quotes with every instance, which is how judicial opinions seem to handle it (admittedly, my sample is small). But I'm not sure I see how this violates WP:NPOV; what side are we taking? If there's a proper neutral term, I'm unaware of it. JeffConrad (talk) 08:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

A legal-offense-looking phrase may need a constant reminder that it is a pseudo-offense in the content of legal technical writing, but we're writing a general interest encyclopedia, not a technical document nor a legal brief as WP:TONE notes. As such, I'm not so sure judicial opinion language is appropriate here. Using scare quotes or "so-called" the first time is enough to establish the idea that it is pseudo, and nothing on that point is added on the 2nd use. What it does add is the appearance of bias because it is using what appears to be rhetoric, as use of repetition to redundancy is a rhetorical device. (From WP:NPOV: "Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized.") My first reaction on reading this article was that someone pro-law enforcement vandalized the page. 173.164.136.5 (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

[unindent] I think it's a matter of clarity rather than legalistic vs. general-interest writing. I just don't see the pro-law-enforcement bias; quite honestly, I first thought you were suggesting just the opposite. And I also don't see any connection between what you linked from “repetition to redundancy” and this discussion.

The University of Chicago Press advise that the quotes are needed for every instance; Garner's Modern American Usage (2nd ed., under Punctuation[N]) implies but doesn't explicitly prescribe the same treatment. Both distinguish between scare quotes and the introduction of terminology (often specific to a document), for which the quotes are needed only for the first instance.

Observed usage, in publication and on the web in general, seems to vary. To be honest, though, the sample is very small because only a handful of works use the term more than once.

Consider another possible example somewhat related to this topic: arrest solely for resisting arrest. Common sense would lead most reasonable people to ask, “How is this even possible?” And at least in California, it is impossible—there is no such offense. But police and news media are fond of using it to refer to “resisting, delaying, or obstructing an officer” (Penal Code §148[a][1]); in some instances, this usage has even confused police officers. Scare quotes would at least alert that this isn't the actual offense; of course, a far better approach would be to simply use the proper description, such as resisting an officer or obstructing an officer. Here, of course, we have no such proper description.

A glance at the article suggests that we've used “contempt of cop” far too often, making for difficult reading with or without the quotes. I think we should recast some of the sentences to reduce the number of occurrences. JeffConrad (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I've changed two instances of contempt of cop to indicate reference to the term rather than the practice. By defining it as “law-enforcement jargon”, the first instance seems to be referring to the term, but to be honest, an argument can probably be made either way. Change the first instance back to scare quotes if lack of them at first mention leads to confusion when they're used on later instances. JeffConrad (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Used in extralegal “offense”

The double quotes in extralegal “offense” are absolutely essential, because without them, we imply that offense is used in its normal sense. Extralegal is a valid term, but the combination is an such an extreme neologism that it can't be justified here. The expression is nonetheless unsightly, and there may be a better alternative. But simply dropping the “scare quotes” isn't one of them. JeffConrad (talk) 04:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem here may be indicative of the subject itself, rather than the terms used to describe it. What I mean is that "contempt of cop" is something that (by law) should not exist, yet it is commonplace. So the inherent contradiction is embodied in the concept itself, and the language is just revealing that. Dhaluza (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Putting offense in quotes signifies nothing. The word extralegal clearly indicates we're not talking about a legal offense. TO take offense to give offense, the meaning is well established and an entirely appropriate use of the word. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that most readers will eventually figure it out, but they may need to reread it a couple of times, as Sandstein has indicated. You went through a bit of a gyration to arrive at your final conclusion, and others may need to do the same. I'd guess this is especially true for those who aren't native English speakers. So I'm not sure it signifies nothing. The meaning of extralegal is well established, but I don't think the same can be said for extralegal offense (I get 4 hits on Google and 5 on Bing). I think the best approach is to use different wording and dispense with the rhetorical flourish. JeffConrad (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Implications leading to arrest

I removed much of the extraneous material (i.e. related to search, which has nothing to do with this subject) based on WP:RELEVANCE. I question whether the remaining material is really related to this general topic, or more specifically to the arrest of Henry Louis Gates. Dhaluza (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree and have removed the material. This article is about contempt of cop, not about the Gates arrest or about distinctions between arrests at home or in public. Such material could be used in the article about arrest instead.  Sandstein  05:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• That section refers to typical "Implications" of contempt-of-cop behavior. Per WP:NOTDICT, Wikipedia is not a dictionary: articles are not limited to a concise definition of a term, but rather, include typical implications related to the topic. A famous painter creates rare paintings, and they end up at art auctions, bringing high bids, as an implication of the events. I didn't realize it would seem difficult to grasp the cause-and-effect connection: people make defiant remarks, then they might get arrested and searched (typically at home or in a vehicle). I have added more text to make the connections seem clearer. I'm sorry the text seemed so confusing; basically: defiant remarks - can lead to - arrest and further search. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that an encyclopedia article needs to go beyond a mere definition to describe its subject in detail, but the implications you are discussing go beyond the sources, and venture into the area of WP:OR. While a search may logically result from an arrest, the published sources focus on the arrest and use of force in relation to this subject, not on any resulting search. Stick to the what WP:RS discussing the subject directly say, and avoid introducing your own conclusions. Dhaluza (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have difficulty with the relevance of this section to the rest of the article. For practical purposes, it's specific to Gates's arrest, and seems to be wild speculation based on one source. To be sure, there is a big difference between being in one's house and outside (or even in the doorway), but I think we're wrong to imply that getting a person outside to arrest for disorderly conduct or breach of the peace is a commonly employed technique without more support than one source citing a handful of sound bites. And there is still one issue that everyone in the media seems to have overlooked: if the speech is protected (e.g., Houston v. Hill), the local law is irrelevant. JeffConrad (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Other issues of relevance

I question the relevance of “flight from the police” in the second paragraph. Though the reference describes it as a type of challenge to an officer's authority, the courts have held that it constitutes grounds for detention under the conditions of Terry v. Ohio, so police action in response isn't always extralegal. JeffConrad (talk) 06:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and similarly "disobeying instructions". Dhaluza (talk) 10:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the references describe both as a form of perceived "contempt of cop", and so we should mention them as such. Whether arrests made for such behaviour are legal is not strictly a matter of whether or not it is "contempt of cop", but if they are, we should note this.  Sandstein  10:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The reference calls them a "variant" on the contempt of cop theme. So it's clear that this shouldn't be included as an example. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the difference between a "variant" and a "form" of contempt of cop? Not much that I can see.  Sandstein  21:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

We may be splitting hairs, but I really think even calling it a “variant” is stretching things. This article is about citation or arrest for a fabricated offense; though fleeing from police isn't quite an offense (it's reasonable suspicion short of probable cause), to include it as a form of “contempt of cop” seems pushing it. Were we to do so, we'd need to include so many other actions that the point of the article would be lost. JeffConrad (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we're better to call flight a “variant”, but as I've said, we're splitting hairs, and I think we're on marginal ground, anyway. Although flight at the sight of police isn't an offense, flight after arrest is escape, and in California, flight from a detention constitutes obstructing an officer. JeffConrad (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit and title change

I've tried to make this section (which I retitled Conduct in public) match what the source actually supports, as well as have it make sense grammatically. But Maclin made only a comment relating to Gates's arrest, and even the slight generalization that remains distorts that comment. A strictly literal restatement would require that the section be specific to Gates's arrest, and we've repeatedly tried to avoid conflating that with the topic of this article. I don't think the new title is great, but the previous one was a non sequitur. Again, I think this article would be better without this section. JeffConrad (talk) 08:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

POV?

Hi, ChildofMidnight. I'd be interested to know what POV you think this article advances. (I'm a Continental European and not interested in US politics, if you think this is related in the Gates arrest situation.)  Sandstein  21:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the tagging is misguided—if expressive use of force isn't police misconduct, just what is it? And in most places, making an arrest (even if it's a cite and release) without probable cause is itself a serious offense (definitely extralegal, but hardly ever charged), usually constituting perjury if details of the incident report are fabricated to support the charge. Perhaps the issue is the match of the source to the statement (I've only read the cited page), but when the citation is at the end of a list of items, it's hard to tell whether it's meant to apply to some or all. Again, if it isn't police misconduct, what is it? JeffConrad (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not illegal and I don't see anywhere that it is well established that it is misconduct. As we see in the Gates case, there are different viewpionts and legal interpretations. The case law is not clear. So we need to be neutral. Identifying it as police misconduct is misleading. Can you find a single source where a policeman is prosecuted for misconduct after arresting someone who is yelling at them or cursing them? Just because something is legal, doesn't mean you can't be arrested for doing it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No, from what I understand the Gates case is not clear, because people disagree about what exactly happened. This is not about the Gates case, but about contempt of cop in general, and particularly about arrests and violence in response to it. Unless you believe that all or even most such arrests and violence are legal (which I would venture is a dubious proposition), we are talking about police misconduct by definition. Even assuming such arrests and violence are legal, people are still talking about them as misconduct, which if nothing else would warrant the category.  Sandstein  21:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The lack of prosecution of police for misconduct is a red herring. It is extremely unusual for prosecutors to charge police for actions short of the most heinous acts. However there are many instances where request for summary judgment on qualified immunity in actions under 42 U.S.C. 1983 is denied when the officer requesting it has been out of line. A police officer will be granted qualified immunity unless

1. There has been a violation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights.
2. The actions violated clearly established law.

So just what would you call actions that result in a 1983 action being allowed to proceed to trial? JeffConrad (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Contempt of cop is a phrase describing actions, especially verbal abuse and rudeness, that are disrespectful to police officers. How police respond to this action and whether it is appropriate to arrest people in some severe cases is another issue. As the Gates example shows, there is not agreement on what amount of disruption is acceptable or whether arresting someone for beign verbally abusive is appropriate or misconduct. Since there is no conclusion in the sources or society, we would be ill advised to impose our own conclusions on the article or inferring that certain reactions to contempt of cop behavior is inherently improper. Beatings and violence against suspects is clearly illegal, so there is no issue. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is strictly your opinion, and assuredly not NPOV; furthermore, it makes no sense on its face. “Contempt of cop” refers to the alleged rather than actual behavior towards police. Whether police may arrest for this behavior is governed by the case law, most notably Houston v. Hill and its progeny. With few exceptions, considerably abusive behavior is protected speech. The current lead is so bad that it should be reverted immediately (perhaps an informal vote would be appropriate). ChildOfMidnight, you have hijacked this article in a manner that cannot be justified and does a grave disservice to its readers. JeffConrad (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps “hijacking” overreaches a bit, but I still think you are supporting some ideas that approach fringe viewpoints. In particular, it's not reasonable to treat police allegations of rude behavior as statements of fact. I've made a couple of interim changes in attempt to make the article more neutral. As Sandstein has suggested, not all sources are equally reliable; one simply cannot reasonably give equal weight to editorial opinions and those of the U.S. courts. I've tried to clarify, in the text, the differences between editorials and court decisions, both pro and con. I still think a lot of sorting out is needed. JeffConrad (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't "contempt of cop" by definition rude behavior? I mean isn't that what it is? The sources I've read suggest the phrase means insubordination, disrespect and disobedience to police officers. I'm not trying to be fringey, I'm just trying to make sure that we don't conflate arresting people for contempt of cop, which describes actions that may or may not amount to disorderly conduct in some cases, with police misconduct. I'm sympathetic to the idea that unless someone has committed a crime and is going to be charged they shouldn't be arrested. I understand and see that arrests for contempt of cop can amount to abuse, harassment and intimidation. But it's not clear to me from the sources that these arrests are tantamount to misconduct, even from the sources that are critical of the practice. And I think the Gates case serves as a good example of this. There's a debate about whether arresting him was appropriate/ acceptable/ abusive. Is there ever behavior or communication that does amoun tto disorderly conduct? I'm just suggesting that we accurately reflect what contempt of cop is (rudeness, verbal opposition, and disobedience as I understand it) and the discussion over the gray area of legality and illegality as far as whether the "contempt of cop" behavior is acceptable/ appropriate/ legal, and whether arresting or responding to it in various ways is acceptable/ appropriate/ legal. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so—that's one of the reasons for the “scare quotes”. “Contempt of cop” denotes behavior that police consider insufficiently deferential. Rudeness is in the eye of the beholder, and even then, in most circumstances, it's not a legal basis for arrest—that's why it was originally termed an extralegal offense. You can cite any source that you want, but in the end, the only opinion that really matters is from a person in a black robe—that's why Dhaluza and I have cited the case law, which very strongly supports that the First Amendment protects considerable abuse hurled at police (we could have cited many more cases equally in support). But I don't think we're pushing an agenda, either—we both cited cases in which the courts held that not all speech is protected. I don't suggest that arrests for any of the offenses that usually come under “contempt of cop” are always invalid, or that no actions can rise to disorderly conduct. But the courts have consistently held, at least as far back as Houston v. Hill, that when directed at police, words alone need to go mighty far to constitute a crime. If you want a very thorough, straightforward discussion devoid of hifalutin legalese, I recommend Johnson v. Campbell, 332 F.3d 199 (3rd Circuit, 2003). The point of this article is an arrest made for behavior that police dislike and that the courts consider distasteful but which nonetheless is not illegal; such an arrest is by definition a form of police misconduct, and arguably a very serious one.

As I've repeatedly said, I don't want to conflate this issue with Gates's arrest. If his conduct was outside the limits protected by Houston v. Hill, his arrest may well have been valid; if not, I'd put it under “contempt of cop”. I wasn't there and don't know all that happened, but from what I've read, I'm not sure I see those limits having been violated. I don't by any means suggest that Gates's behavior was laudable, but simply that it may not have been illegal. Now I may be a bit biased, because years ago, when I was a young white man, I had a very similar experience. I knew nothing of my rights, went along with the game, and it all ended very quickly—there was no “contempt of cop” because I meekly complied. But the detention was extralegal, and had I been penalized for noncompliance, it would have been actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983. All I can say is that I know directly of at least one police action that was illegal. This article covers one class of such actions; in no way does it imply that all arrests under the various offenses listed are improper. JeffConrad (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Just to let people here know: Because I lack the time for discussions at this level of detail, and because this begins to devolve into issues of US politics that I do not know or care about, I'll withdraw from editing the article for now. Maybe I'll take another look at it after my holidays, if there are still disputed issues by then.  Sandstein  07:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Police misconduct

Would it not be better to use the more common term police brutality (which is the actual article title) or excessive force (which is the more common term in civil rights actions) than police violence? JeffConrad (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I've changed to excessive force as it's more neutral and arguably more correct. There is a difference in implication, however. The new wording implies that arrest was valid but the force used to effect it was excessive; the previous wording implied that there may have been no basis for the arrest. The case can be made for either point of view. JeffConrad (talk) 06:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I've included both, with language that should make clear that police brutality is an more extreme example. Dhaluza (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Covers the bases. JeffConrad (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Racial aspects

I believe this move is mistaken. The sentence at issue talks about discrimination against black men.  Sandstein  21:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

And this edit is mistaken, too. Coleman, 136 says that "Given relationships between some young black people and the police, such groups may be more likely to have formal action taken against them." That's what the text paraphrased.  Sandstein  21:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The way you're selecting tidbits and stringing them together is giving an innacurate overall impression. The source describes the phenomenon and then gives the relation some young black men have with police as an example. The way it was written suggests it applies to all young black men and that it applies to all young black people and that interactional discrimination is racial, but that's clearly not what the source says or implies. So it's very misleading. This seems to be happening a lot with this article and it's making it very misleading and slanted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I know little about race relations in the US, but my impression from reading the source is that the author believes that young black people are a prominent target of "interactional discrimination". What do others think? Could we phrase this more clearly?  Sandstein  21:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is with taking one prominent example of interactional discrimination and generalizing that into being what interactional discrimination is all about. The source as I read it seems pretty clear that it doesn't have to be about race, but that it originates in disrespect on one side and acts of discretion on the other. An example involving some members of one race is given, but I don't see how that can be generalized into the only situation where there is disrespect shown an officer and they use discretion to make arrests. This is a very diverse country with diverse police forces so making that kind of generalization is problematic. If want to include the example given we need to make clear as the source does that it's one example. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I do see that the section does focus a lot on racial issues, so I'd be willing to compromise with some clear wording. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

In this instance, I somewhat agree with ChildOfMidnight. The example cited is just that, one example, and I am not in a position to comment on the author's credentials. I also have a bit of a problem with the last sentence in the cited paragraph, which seems to say that “contempt of cop” is not a valid reason for arrest, but can form the basis for a valid booking. I haven't examined the secondarily cited source (Reiner 1992a), but don't see how a person can be validly booked for an invalid arrest. As I've mentioned here a couple of times, I don't think we should conflate “contempt of cop” and racial profiling. I also think we should be careful not to conflate this article with Gates's arrest. I don't think anyone has shown credible evidence of racial profiling; Gates may or may not have been arrested for “contempt of cop”, and it's not the role of this article to make that call, either directly or by implication. JeffConrad (talk) 02:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"Worst possible crime"

What's the objection to this tidbit? The edit summary asks "What does it mean to be the "worst possible crime"?" Well, I don't know, but I find it interesting that these sources all call it that (tongue in cheek, I presume).  Sandstein  21:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I kind of understand what they're getting at. But we need to spell out what is meant. And it's not clear to me. So I'm uncomfortable messing with it. Would it be fair to say that police treat it as the worst possible crime? Is that what's meant? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What I assume these writers mean to say is that the (subtext: brutish, arrogant...) cops care more about their own authority than about upholding the law, to the point where they consider attacks on their authority to be worse crimes than any other. But of course we can't say that, because that's our WP:OR interpretation of these writers' intent (and at any rate that would be taking at face value what is obviously a conscious exaggeration for comic effect). So I don't believe they literally mean that police treat "contempt of cop" as the worst possible crime; instead, they use sarcasm to convey the message that the police think a bit too much of themselves (or so the writers believe). That's why I propose that we don't try to interpret it, just report the fact that many writers call it "the worst possible crime" and let readers draw their own conclusions (about both the writers and the cops).  Sandstein  21:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. See that's a very strong take that I'm not getting. I don't see anything clearly stating that . The bit seems to me to be more an indication that cops don't like being disrespected and that individuals doing so will be treated as if they've committed the worst possible crime. I don't think that's the same as saying that cops reacting to verbal abuse are inherently brutish and arrogant. And it also goes back to the core issue which is that some people are editing this article to make contempt of cop about police misconduct and racism. But I don't think that's clear from the sources. Will a black cop being verbally abused by a white kid arrest them? Is that racism? It seems like some editors want to draw conclusions, but I think we need to be very careful to stay NPOV and represent the opinions, laws, and sources fairly. Certainly some of the writers don't like contempt of cop arrests, but I don't see anywhere that it's established that it's improper or illegal to arrest someone for impeding an investigation or disturbing the peace. It seems to be a questionable grey area for law enforcement where opinions differ, including in legal findings. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and because people can disagree what these writers mean by calling it "the worst possible crime", we should not make the article reflect our opinions about this, just state that they call it that. What's objectionable about that?  Sandstein  21:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

We may be talking past one another if you say that "I don't see anywhere that it's established that it's improper or illegal to arrest someone for impeding an investigation or disturbing the peace." Of course such arrests are legal if these offences have actually been commited. This article is not about such arrests, but about arrests that are made solely for "contempt of cop", not for actual offences.  Sandstein  21:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If we know the source is not being literal then including it in the encyclopedia as a literal statement gives it a meaning that was not intended and that isn't accurate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Severity: assaulting an officer

29-July-09: The article (in each revision as of 28-July-2009) refers to the "trilogy" of "disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and assaulting an officer". I find that grouping bizarre, when considered in real-world America. In the United States, it is usually an "unpardonable sin" to "assault an officer" (often causing severe police retaliation) and should not be grouped lightly with "disorderly conduct": in the 1970s, the SLA (of Patty Hearst fame) fired from inside a house, and when the police were finished, 9 thousand rounds of bullets had been pumped into that house, which "caught on fire" and burned the 6 occupants. In July 2009, a suspect in Florida held up an air gun when chased by police, and he was shot dead (54 bullets were fired?) near a day care center filled with children and stray bullets. Hurting a U.S. police dog is punishable by years in prison, because assaulting "Officer Fido" is much worse than hurting a lowly human citizen. Please understand, in the U.S., casual talk of assaulting an officer, is like talking about a "slap versus a guillotine". You might find U.S. prison terms for assault to be higher than murder of citizens. Hence, I don't think "assaulting an officer" has much relevance in the article, unless emphasized as igniting dynamite in the U.S. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that source was simply saying that the charge of assaulting an officer may result from contempt of cop, when the conduct does not constitute assault according to its legal definition. Actual assault is a crime, and use of necessary force by the officer is justified in this case. The shootings you describe are not contempt of cop cases. Dhaluza (talk) 11:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I did find 3 sources that refer to those 3 actions as "the trilogy", so if it must be stated, then perhaps also mention that some types of assault can be considered severe crimes, such as attempting to choke an officer, treated as aggravated assault punishable by up to 15 years in prison (2009 Vermont case, webpage: W725). -Wikid77 (talk) 12:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is consistent with Dhaluza's that the trilogy refers to the charges issued in response to contempt of cop. Maybe some clarification is needed if there is confusion? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think battery on a peace officer is a far more likely candidate, because very little is required to sustain it—contact of any kind, whether or not forceful, is often enough. For example, see Bushell-McIntyre v. City of San Jose (9th Cir., 2007 [unpublished]), where the Court upheld the validity of Bushell-McIntyre's arrest because she had touched the officer's badge in attempt to get its number. Of course, if there is actual contact, this is a real offense, but the decision to charge is arguably discretionary. In any event, it's much easier for an officer to claim that he was touched than to claim assault. JeffConrad (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

References

Form

The wording “Arrests for disrespectful behavior ...” assumes that the behavior actually is disrespectful, which seems to go against the point of the article. Behavior resulting in a “contempt of cop” arrest presumably is perceived by the officer as disrespectful, but this does not necessarily mean that an objective, reasonable person would view it as such. JeffConrad (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Perceived vs. actual behavior

Reference to “disrespectful behavior” unjustifiably assumes that it is indeed disrespectful. In some cases, it may well be, but in others it may not. One behavior often claimed as a precursor to a “contempt of cop” arrest is asking for an officer's name and badge number, which is perfectly reasonable unless done in an abusive manner. Alleged might be an alternative, but it seems a bit legalistic. We also could put disrespectful in “scare quotes”, but this seems more judgmental; nonetheless, it would be more accurate the unqualified statement. JeffConrad (talk) 05:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

See, for example, this article in the Washington Post, which states on page 6,

“... officers may regard a citizen's questions or refusal to fully cooperate as an offense known informally among police as ‘contempt of cop’ – a sign of disrespect that could escalate into trouble.”

JeffConrad (talk) 05:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

“Arrests for ‘contempt of cop’ ...” would seem to avoid judgment. Although it's a bit repetitious of an ungainly phrase, “perceived disrespectful behavior” was hardly elegant, either. JeffConrad (talk) 06:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Asserting one's constitutional rights

This probably is legitimately included as behavior that might constitute “contempt of cop”, but the description should be more specific (e.g., as in stating such rights in a manner that might be taken as lecturing or talking down to an officer), and it should be supported by a reliable source. JeffConrad (talk) 05:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The WL to the Fourth Amendment may offer a partial explanation, but it doesn't really support a circumstance of “contempt of cop”. Moreover, the Fourth Amendment isn't the only one that might come into play—an equal case could probably be made for the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth amendments. Perhaps it's splitting hairs, but there's also a difference between invoke and assert. It's one thing to say, “Officer, am I free to go?” or “I have nothing more to say until I can speak with an attorney”, but another to say, “The First Amendment allows me to criticize your actions” or similar. The latter may be seen as lecturing the officer who feels that she should be the one doing the lecturing. If the comment remains, I think the wording should be changed to what it was, and the WL removed. If no one has any strong objections, I'll make these changes. JeffConrad (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've made the changes and added a {{fact}} tag. The tag isn't to dispute the statement, but simply to indicate that some support is appropriate. Additional specificity would also seem appropriate (as I mentioned above), but without a source, it would seem to be WP:OR. JeffConrad (talk) 05:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Reference removed

I took out the following reference which was attached to a "see also" now present in the article ([1][2]). It is listed here in case it is still needed somewhere. ZabMilenko 04:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

{{cite web
|url= http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6553889.html
|title= The crime of contempt of cop
|author= Tom Moran
|work= Houston Chronicle
|date= July 29, 2009
|quote= }}

Someone else reverted because of the phrasing. I tried to reword it more appropriately. I definitely think the content should be included in the article rather than dropped in as a see also where it's significance or relation isn't clear and perhaps given undue weight. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm the editor who reverted ZabMilenko's edit. I think the reason the Gates reference was originally in "See also" (instead of its current section) is that although many reliable sources have described this as a CoC situation, it is not an established fact that the officer asked Gates to step outside for the specific purpose of arresting him. Many people have inferred this conclusion from the observed actions and behaviors, but perhaps we should leave it to the reader to draw his own conclusion. Therefore I think the current text is still misleading, as we only know the following:

• Fact: the officer asked Gates to step outside the house
• Fact: the officer arrested Gates (while outside) for disorderly conduct
• Opinion: "That's why the cop asked him to come outside, where he could be arrested for being disorderly in public." (Boston University law professor Tracey Maclin, whose agenda and credentials beyond his title and affiliation are unknown)

Even if the professor's statement is sometimes or even often true in similar cases, we don't know that it is true in this specific case; the officer has essentially denied it by giving a reason for asking Gates to step outside (other than to arrest him). I know it is easy to conclude otherwise, but I think that due to the controversial nature of the topic, the article is better served by sticking to the facts and a NPOV.

In any event, the Houston Chronicle article now seems to be a broken link. —hulmem (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point and I tried to phrase it in such a way that reflects that:

• Fact: the officer asked Gates to step outside the house
• Fact: the officer arrested Gates (while outside) for disorderly conduct
• *Many people (including reliable sources) have made a connection to "contempt of cop"

Is there a better way to phrase it? I tried to reflect what I remembered seeing in the sources discussing event. I think including it as a see also is even more problematic. Certainly the incident is relevant to this subject (as I recall this article was created around that time?) so I think it should be included in the body of the article. I'm flexible on how best to do that. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we need to avoid speculation, but I think we need the right reference and the right wording. The Ogletree reference is is a complete non-sequitur, offering no support whatsoever for "contempt of cop" in connection with Gates's arrest. If we need a citation, we should use Rochman, which does "talk of contempt of cop". We also should stick with "has been described" or "has been described by some" to describe something that has happened rather than seeming to predict something that's ongoing. I think the former wording is better because it's more compact, and "some" doesn't really mean anything. If no one objects, I'll make these changes.

If we really need to qualify the number of people making this assumption, we should stick strictly to the facts, and say something like "Criminal justice professor John Shane has described ...", but we start getting pretty cluttered. I'll confess to adding "Boston University law professor Tracey Maclin ..." to deal with an earlier objection, but I think that, too, would be much better stated as "It has been suggested ..."; when followed by a citation, I think it works to the same effect, implying no more than that one person has made the suggestion. JeffConrad (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

American Constitution Society for Law and Policy

Just saw this article from American Constitution Society for Law and Policy [3]

Interesting. It's obviously POV, but scholarly and light on rhetoric, so it might be worth adding to External links unless someone has strong objections. She covers the key jurisprudence (which most of the media seemed to miss at the time of Gates's arrest), and her comments on various incidents, many of which I was already familiar with, seem in line with the facts. JeffConrad (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and a summary in the body perhaps? Allformweek (talk) 07:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Offhand, I have no great ideas for putting a summary in the article, and we've actually already covered many of the points, so I just added it to External links for now. JeffConrad (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Impulsive formatting apology

Hello, all. I saw this article tweeted by Mike Godwin [4] and made an impulsive edit to the order of the notes and bibliography section before checking in here. I hope it wasn't disruptive. Great article! LaMona (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

proposed deletion

Based on this, I don't think this article should remain:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary

This article doesn't do anything beyond defining a single bit of jargon.

I also think the article in general is low quality, and do not see how to fix it because it just doesn't belong as an encyclopedia entry.

I looked at the first few references, and they are aren't anything beyond "usage examples" of the sort you'd see in a dictionary.

There might be a somewhat related and proper article about free speech rights relating to law enforcement actions.

Declanscottp (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with the WP:PROD nomination. The article includes case law, its relationship to freedom of speech, and the racial aspects of its application. You'll need to submit it at WP:AFD. Schazjmd (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. This is my first deletion proposal, I was not aware anything needed to be done beyond tagging it. I will do so. In response to your statement, I think the fact there are court cases involving people who are rude to police officers doesn't change the fact this is still just about a slang term. There are court cases that involve mall security guards. That doesn't mean we need an article called "rent-a-cop." Declanscottp (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Declanscottp, if no editor objected to the proposed deletion, there wouldn't be any more that needed to be done. However, I objected, so now the only path to deletion is WP:AFD, that's what my comment meant. I don't agree that this is a noncontroversial, obvious deletion, therefore it isn't eligible for WP:PROD. Schazjmd (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you again for the explanation. Declanscottp (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Well I was outvoted, but I still think this is a bad article that should be deleted entirely. To sum up: it is mostly providing the definition of a single bit of jargon, then some usage examples, then random anecdotes about American cases that involve close calls between "disorderly conduct/resisting arrest" and "freedom of speech." In theory, you could do the same about any bit of legal jargon. But what it is not is a legal concept. Moreover, there's really no way to make this article NPOV, because accepting contempt of cop as a legitimate term is itself controversial. I won't renominate it of course, but if someone who understands the rules better wants to look into it, I think this would be positive. Declanscottp (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)