Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Home › News › Local News

Lafayette police chief wants anti-taunting law

The Camera

Published July 14, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Updated July 14, 2008 at 6:30 a.m.

Text size  

More Local News

More stories »

Taunting or hurling profanities at police officers could soon land you in jail on obstruction charges - if Lafayette's police chief has his way.

Chief Paul Schultz recently asked the City Council to strengthen the city's ordinance on obstructing a police officer, a move that has drawn concern from some council members and the Boulder County chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

"Officers have been subjected to very abusive language," Schultz said. "This gives them a tool. Otherwise, they would just have to stand there and take that verbal abuse."

Though the council recently approved the ordinance change on first reading, two members voted no because of concerns about regulating speech.

For complete Daily Camera story, click here.

Comments

  • July 14, 2008

    1:13 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    clyde writes:

    And Lafayette takes another step down the slippery slope to dictatorship. Perhaps some of the things the officers are doing might deserve a rebuke or two.

  • July 14, 2008

    3:30 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Shadow writes:

    Although I sympathise with the police officers who have to stand there and listen to the vile vocabulary being used on them. It is not only abusive but derogatory and demeaning. To outlaw this is a form of censorship and I would think contrary to the First amendment.

  • July 14, 2008

    5:13 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    LuvAmerica writes:

    Here before anyone asks: it's not the same as hate laws protecting groups such as minorities or gays, because those are not choices by the parties being protected.

    Cops choose to be cops, and most of the ones I've known have rather thick skin. This seems like just another excuse to arrest people.

  • July 14, 2008

    5:57 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    surferon writes:

    Sticks and stones. Wow, we are becoming a society of wussies.

  • July 14, 2008

    6:05 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Jim writes:

    Maybe Chief Paul Schultz should look for another job. Being taunted by drunks, drug addicts and sociopaths goes with the territory.

  • July 14, 2008

    6:07 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Jim_in_Erie writes:

    There are many sides to an issue like this.
    The emotions of all parties involved when the police are present.
    The fact that some folks, for a variety of reasons, loath Law Enforcement.
    The fact that some people never learned to control themselves, and just spin up to 'impressive' levels over sometimes minor matters.
    The fact that some cops wear their uniform like a battering ram. (Note I said some, by no means all, or even most.)
    And, of course, the slippery slope of more and more government regulation of just about everything.
    Ultimately I come down on the side of Free Speech.
    You don't have to like or approve of what someone else says to understand that it's only a matter of time before what YOU have to say might be 'offensive'.

  • July 14, 2008

    7:21 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    roger44 writes:

    Don't agree they need that law. If they pass enough of them you can be arrested for having brown eyes. Enough, enforce the laws we have. Very few people that are sober have given law enforcement a bad time. But there are idiots out there and give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves eventually.

  • July 14, 2008

    7:31 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    SockRayBlue writes:

    So much for the Lafayette police upholding that part of the Constitution. Maybe the Captain (Sgt. "I see nothing" Shultz) should reread his oath of office. You know the ACLU is waiting for him to cross the line.

    How do you people deal with the Boulder, Lafayette, Fort Collins Triad?

  • July 14, 2008

    7:43 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    surferon writes:

    You have to know that as a cop you're mostly going to deal with people at their worst. Usually if you're behaving and minding your own business the cops won't mess with you too much. If you can't handle dealing with people who may become abusive maybe you should find a new line of work.

    Maybe we can have a law like that that protects bartenders and bouncers when they have to cut someone off, sometimes those folks become abusive too. At least the cops can arrest someone for public intox. As a service industry worker you get to just sit there and take it.

  • July 14, 2008

    8:21 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    BigSky182 writes:

    I think the potential for abuse on this one is just too high.

    Why further mire down the judicial system with hundreds of cases that are essentially going to amount to:

    "He said ******"
    "No I didn't"
    "Yes you did!"
    "Did not"
    "Did too!!"

    One of the essential freedoms of this Country is the freedom to say whatever ignorant, idiotic thing I want to say.

  • July 14, 2008

    9:03 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    solar_satellite writes:

    Schultz' judgment is so poor that he should not be a patrolman, much less a police chief. It's bad enough to harbor such views privately, but the man must be an idiot to waste the time of the City Council with them. I'm tempted to drive to Lafayette and taunt him. There are way too many Good Germans in Colorado.

  • July 14, 2008

    9:31 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    buffsblg writes:

    nice choice, in hard economic times, we should pass a law that will inevitably be the subject of a constitutional lawsuit and which will cost thousands to defend, and which they will almost certainly lose. Always better to spend money on lawyers than on more cops or fixing roads. All because the police chief thinks his people cannot handle some insults. The stuff cops hear is terrible, but every one I have known take it as part of the job.

  • July 14, 2008

    9:38 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Blair writes:

    After reading some of the comments posted here, I wonder why some seem to believe that it is acceptable to taunt a police officer and unacceptable for the officer to do the same. If a "citizen" were to taunt you in this manner, are you willing to accept it with out response? Why do you hold this human being to a higher standard than you hold yourself? I agree that a law is not required, but, maybe there should be more respect from the public in general. They deserve the same respect that you do.

  • July 14, 2008

    12:48 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Skeptic1 writes:

    Chicago tried to do this about 35 years ago. The courts found that since the police were government employees, profanities and other offensive speech were protected speech and the law was struck down.

  • July 14, 2008

    5:42 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    happymike44 writes:

    Well let's see now the police want to curtail pople's freedom of speech.
    Well let me tell you I do not care for this to become a law my family helped found this country.
    We have always been a nation of disobedient troublemakers.
    So why do the boys want to curtail people's right to freedom of speech.
    Money if they do not like something you say off to jail you go.
    We are not a dictatorship so what the police want to do is try to control and intimidate the public.
    This is not their right s people do not let it happen.
    Because if you do what's next,what book can't you read or movie you can't see.
    The bad words and cat calling is part of the job.
    If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen.
    So pull up your big girl panties and get over it.