0 users logged on

Tips: BlueJerseyDotCom (AIM) |

Principles? Or lack thereof?

by: Thurman Hart

Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:33:07 PM EDT

So now Jerramiah Healy is claiming that his right to free speech was infringed when he was arrested for not allowing police to interview two people involved in a domestic dispute. His claim is pretty stupid. Carried to its logical conclusion, it holds that any random citizen (remember, he claims he was not acting as an elected official) has the right to force a police officer to stop what they are doing and listen to the ramblings of that random citizen. Regardless of whether or not that citizen is drunk or not.

I don't want to deal with the Constitutional issues here - first, it's ridiculous on its face; and second, you can comment at NJ Voices if you want. I want to focus on the underlying attitude(s) at work here.

Thurman Hart :: Principles? Or lack thereof?

Healy claims that he is simply fighting to right a wrong - and if "they" can railroad the mayor of Jersey City; then the average person has no chance at all. To the extent that is true, then he is involved in a noble venture. He is making of himself a punching bag so that the rest of us can enjoy our Constitutional rights. I think any such motivation is not based in reality, but that's the view from my seat.

Self-denial, however, is impossible to detect in one's self, by its very definition. Healy can repeat his justification all he wants to, but the length to which legal precedent must be stretched for it to be true shows that something else is going on below the surface. Perhaps part of it is the long-standing level of friction between the Bradley Beach police and the Healy household. I don't know. But usually when someone expends a lot of effort shoring up an excuse that is so patently thin, there is something else going on.

I believe that the "something else" is found in the revelation of Healy's interaction with the police that night. Between threatening and begging, Healy was determined to escape any and all consequences of his actions. That is the heart of both addiction and corruption.

The addict wants to use their drug of choice and simply enjoy the buzz. They just want their family, friends, and boss to leave them alone and make any special allowances for their actions. From their point of view, it is irrational for people to hold them to the same standards as everyone else - or, in their twisted viewpoint, they see themselves as already exceeding the standards everyone else merely aspires to. Whichever way they look at it, the addict holds an attitude of entitlement to both their favorite drug and a regular life.

The corrupt official operates in much the same way. He (or she) holds a public job and believes, or some reason, that they are entitled to something more than the normal perks of the job provide. So they wink and smile and find ways around the legal channels of accomplishing projects. They eventually convince themselves that they are doing nothing wrong - they are merely entitled to an allowance in the way they do things because of what their goal may be. They are entitled to extras because of who they are and what they do.

This is not to say that Mayor Healy is either an addict or a corrupt politician. I have no evidence of that and I'm not implying it in the least. What I'm saying is that Mayor Healy has the attitudes that make such problems possible. It is possible to have these attitudes and never do anything wrong. But holding these attitudes makes it more likely that someone will, sooner or later, step across the line.

Mayor Healy is in some dangerous territory. Every time he appeals his conviction, he opens new questions about his actions. It is his continued insistance that he be able to act without consequence that has allowed Lou Manzo to create a demogogic position of "public advocate" that doesn't actually advocate for the public. Now it has opened a Pandora's Box where the only thing left stinging the Mayor is the thin hope that somehow he can get through the Supreme Court (and the federal courts) and manage to make everyone forget all about it by next November.

Tags: Jerramiah Healy, free speech, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

Principles? Or lack thereof? | 5 comments

Free Speech, Police Misconduct And The Courts... (0.00 / 0)

Without going into a lengthy story, suffice it to say that I once witnessed a number (at least 5) NYC TPF (tactical police force) using their clubs to figuratively "beat the shit out of" a defenseless, naked, tripped out kid who was guilty of nothing except running around Central Park unclothed.

He was knocked to the ground, screaming and flailing to ward off the blows. There was blood all over mostly coming from his head, which was being repeatedly beaten.

I witnessed about 30 or so strikes within what must have been no more than a few seconds....I started instinctively chanting STOP STOP STOP....and a few of the folks in the crowd gathered joined in........I LOUDLY said stuff like, this is a human being.....how can you do this....and some religious things as I recall.....all this from about 15/20 feet away from the cluster of cops assaulting the victim....the cop in charge turned to me and said in a menacing loud ugly voice....."you better shut up or you'll be joining him".

To this day, I'm ashamed to say that I, and the crowd...shut up.

I suspect that Thurman is right in that this appeal stands little or no chance of succeeding. Whether Healy is persevering out of pride or principle is between him and his conscience. But I do submit to you that this case brings up a number of other issues.

Obviously, we'll likely never know exactly what happened in the situation with Healy; but I do know that is is indeed possible for cops to stifle free speech when they don't want to hear what's being said, and I do know that cops can be, in a nutshell, brutal fucking pigs.....and I do know that cops are very very very skilled at lying through their teeth under oath. I have seen and heard those behaviors first hand.

Healy may have been a complete asshole and physically interjected himself into the situation....if he did that; he broke the law.

If all Healy did was speak, from an appropriate distance; then he may have a leg to stand on. I haven't read the trial transcript so I can't say for sure even what was alleged to have occurred.

For me the lesson of all this is that everything a cop does while on duty needs to be recorded on video. The tech for this now finally exists and its fairly cheap. It can be made to weigh less than 8 ounces and be water/shock resistant and it could easily hold 24 hours of content....and shoot for 8 hours on a single battery charge.

When such devices become the norm for ALL cops; then most of these kinds of problems/issues will go away.....and the good cops will be happy to wear them.

by: Nick Lento @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 18:55:46 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Nick (0.00 / 0)

this doesn't have anything to do with rogue officers "beating the shit" out of anyone. If you want to write a piece about that, feel free to do so. As it is, you are simply hijacking the story to talk about issues that are only tangentially related.

by: Thurman Hart @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 19:45:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Excuse Me... (0.00 / 0)

Apologies if you feel that I'm abusing your diary.

I thought his basis for the appeal was that he was using speech to intervene in a situation in which he witnessed police mishandling a situation. If that's not the case, then I am mistaken and there is no analogy between my concerns and his situation.

My recollection is that Healy spoke up in protest about how the cops were dealing with the couple's argument and that he was then arrested for interfering with their work. If all he was doing was talking to them....then he may have been indeed within his rights to speak.

You say, (emphasis added)

" Carried to its logical conclusion, it holds that any random citizen (remember, he claims he was not acting as an elected official) has the right to force a police officer to stop what they are doing and listen to the ramblings of that random citizen. Regardless of whether or not that citizen is drunk or not."

I don't believe Healy has the right to "force" the cop to comply....that indeed would cross the line (but its a straw man as Healy isn't claiming that "right") .......but, I do believe that a bystander does have a right (conceivably a moral obligation!) to speak freely and protest....using their voice....when they see a cop doing something they think is wrong.

If there was video of this, the matter would have, long ago, been settled one way or the other. That's a relevant comment. No?

Imagine how you would feel if you saw a cop doing something you thought was wrong and you spoke out and he cop then arrested you for merely talking? Obviously it would be foolish to resist....and that may be where Healy broke the law. Cops have guns and the power/authority to violently subdue you and even kill you...and they will kill you to avoid being injured; it's really dumb to resist arrest, even if you think it's a bad arrest.

Maybe Healy was indeed drunk and resisted what he felt was an outrageous arrest. I don't know, I wasn't there. All we have to go by is two radically differing versions of events. Someone here is lying.

All I'm saying is that I know what it feels like to have a cop tell me to shut up or you'll be arrested (or beat up).

As I said, you are right to observe that Healy's appeal has a low probability of success....so he is either a fool too proud to admit that he was a jerk (in which case you are presumably right again)......or his version of events is accurate and he's standing on principle despite the political costs.

The law has spoken and we have to accept what it says; but I also know that there are times, especially when it comes to allegations of police misconduct, when the law is an ass.

Mt points, and the remedy I suggested were, imho, quite relevant on their face to your remarks.

No intentional "highjacking" going on here, just a discussion.

Frankly, the more I think about it the more I do see a constitutional issue. What precisely are our free speech rights in the presence of police exercising their powers? Are we compelled to "remain silent"? Or do we have the right to speak up and object, or even call out arguments for the cops to reconsider their actions?

Your rebuke does raise another )genuinely) somewhat tangential "meta" issue....which I shall save for a separate diary, lest you become more annoyed.

by: Nick Lento @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 21:41:18 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I appreciate your viewpoint (0.00 / 0)

but as I said in the diary, the Constitutional aspects are being discussed in another thread.

by: Thurman Hart @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 23:14:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

While Thurman rants on... (0.00 / 1)

As Thurman rants on and posts his usually "ax to grind" dribble, has anyone ever asked the question: What ever happened to the offending citizen who was creating the ruckus in the first place?

Why had the police seen fit to let the offender go without any charges then call him back from out of state, a trip paid for courtesy of the citizens of Bradley Beach, to testify against Healy?

by: HobokenMidget @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:58:45 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Principles? Or lack thereof? | 5 comments