Mishawaka Police officer Jason Barthel has been told to stop selling T-Shirt in his spare time. There is nothing illegal about the Indiana officer selling shirts, but these t-shirts say “Breathe easy, don’t break the law.” They are in direct response to t-shirts being worn in protest over the decision of a New York grand jury not to indict officers in the death of Eric Garner who died in Staten Island from a chokehold while saying that he could not breathe. “I Can’t Breathe” has become a rallying cry for those protesting police abuse of minorities. However, Barthel wants to sell a counter message that supports police. While there has been vandalism of stores selling the t-shirts, they reportedly remain high selling items.
Barthel owns a uniform store and came up with the slogan to, in his view, bring people together. (I am a little surprised that an officer can wear his uniform and badge for a private advertisement if that is indeed his Mishawaka uniform).
As noted today in another story involving unpopular speech by a paramedic, I have previously written about concerns that public employees are increasingly being disciplined for actions in their private lives or views or associations outside of work. We have previously seen teachers (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here), here, here, students (here and here) and other public employees (here and here and here) fired for their private speech or conduct, including school employees fired for posing in magazines (here), appearing on television shows in bikinis (here), or having a career in the adult entertainment industry (here).
In this case, Barthel is selling a t-shirt in his private time that would clearly be protected as political speech in any other context. Police and their supporters have been wearing the shirts. In New York, they read “I Can Breathe. Thanks to the NYPD.” Yet, three South Bend city council members — South Bend City Council members Oliver Davis, Henry Davis Jr. and Valerie Schey— want him to stop, saying that it sends a “divisive message.” It is not clear if selling “I Can’t Breathe” t-shirts would be deemed as divisive. That t-shirt has appeared at national sporting events and other occasions, including a recent basketball game at nearby Notre Dame. The point is that an effort to force Barthel to stop selling the shirts should be preceded by a content-neutral showing that the city has a yet to make this demand. Obviously, if these city council members are just asking for the change, there is nothing wrong with making such a suggestion. However, for a public employee, there is a risk of possible retaliation or discipline or even termination as we have seen in other cases.
To its credit, the city itself appears to view this as a private matter and not something for formal action.
The t-shirts should say “Every Breath You Take- I Will Be Watching You.”
No, Inga, that’s not how logic works.
The proposition “If not A, then B” isn’t the same as “If A, then not B.”
So basically the message on the shirts is “I’ll let you breath if I think you aren’t a criminal”. Have cops become Judge Dredds now? However, he should be allowed to sell his shirts and message of authoritarianism. That message sure doesn’t help community relations, though.
The police have the authority to arrest a recidivist criminal who is intimidating customers and making it that people will not go to this business because they don’t want to deal with the hassle of a 300 mook trying to sell his loosies. They are within their authority to address a petty crime quality of life offense that leads to a climate of lawlessness where felons can walk down the street blocking the street and blocking traffic because they feel like. They are within their authority to stop 300 lb behemoths who try to take away their guns and shoot them in their own patrol cars.
Of course that is not how the criminals and those who support them feel. They want free range knuckleheads who can do what they want. Just go into a store and rough up the hard working immigrant owners and steal their stuff….because….err……because…..err….they could have been De Blasio’s son?
Maybe changing the name to “statute enforcement officers” would help. Officers only have any authority over us within the boundaries of a written statute and their supreme oath of office to uphold the U.S. Constitution over state constitutions.
The title “law enforcement officer” gives the false impression to some (not all) officers that they can operate outside of legal statutes.
By changing the title it’s easier for individual officers to understand their legal authority even with bad police leadership.
Trooper, Some here hate business owners as well. You know the type.
So you would be ok with people breaking the law and ju st having the cops walk away. Who cares if the bodega owner pays taxes? He doesn’t have any rights. Just let that criminal intimidate his customers and kill his business because………err…..because……can you help me out here?
Criticizing police “policies” (which is not the fault of beat cops at all) is not being against the police.
The question was if a police practice is indeed “illegal” are police required to follow the law in non-exigent circumstances, even the laws they disagree with?
The ACLU for example also defends individual police officers in court suing their own police leadership but strongly disagree with many police “policies”.
As usual, the cop haters, including a purported attorney, are assuming facts not in evidence. If a person is wearing gang colors, acting suspicious and then acting hinky when they observe a police officer, there is probable cause to stop and frisk for weapons. The PC TSA stops and frisks EVERYONE, when we know FULL WELL who needs to be stopped and frisked. Cops are profiling criminals. They cannot, and do not, want to frisk everyone. They stop and frisk people of ALL colors who are exhibiting signs of criminal behavior. I’m a STRONG 4th amendment person here, like my good friend Antonin Scalia. But, if you fit CRIMINAL profile, and are exhibiting signs of CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR, stop and frisk is legal.
Setting a urban police department’s policies based on the recommendations of crooks and deadbeats. Now that’s a really good plan. It’s like letting burglars recommend the type of locks for your door.
Deblasio ended stop and frisk and implemented other policing changes based on the recommendations of a panel of ex-convicts. Duh.
Article here.
What if Eric Garner was breaking some other minor ordinance. Let’s say he was urinating in public? He was whipping out his Johnson and peeing on a store and the owner complained. Should the cops arrest him or should we just let it go.
Because petty laws should not be enforced according to you geniuses.
OK, so Trooperyork has pointed out some victims of loosie-sellers.
He argues from evidence, which allows the possibility of increased understanding of the issues under discussion.
How about you, rafflaw? What would you consider evidence for or against your claim that “stop-and-frisk” was not based on probable cause?
Community policing worked in the Eric Garner case. The owner of the bodega that sells cigarettes and pay taxes called his precient to tell them that a career criminal was standing outside his store selling loonies and intimidating his customers into buying his cigs instead of going into the store. The captain sent a black female sgt to supervise. The extremely unhealthy career criminal tragically died resisting arrest.
It was not a black/white issue. It was a criminal vs the community issue. What broken windows is all about.
I don’t think busting a guy selling loosies is really “broken windows” policing. I think it’s tax enforcement, and probably mandated from on high.
The “broken windows” metonym refers to the tendency to let go unpunished small crimes against property that create an ominous environment for all, b/c each incident is of negligible importance. The infamous squeegee guys ramped things up a notch, toward low-grade extortion. In all the usual examples, the crimes aren’t victimless, just petty.
The sale of loosies doesn’t really affect anyone except the government that’s imposed a huge tax on cigarettes.
TrooperYork,
Community policing was supposed to be about building trust with the neighborhood so the people who lived there would help the police get rid of the bad actors. Instead the Broken Window method has led to many more arrests for minor infractions and terrified the neighborhood from calling police more often. Garner is a perfect example.
Community Policing – Let him walk, maybe with a ticket. Get him on your side so he can help point out the heroin dealers, or give information when there’s been a robbery or shooting. The rest of the community sees cops aren’t there just to make arrests and calls them for help when some poor guy is trying to break up a fight in the street.
Broken Window – Call in five cops to arrest someone over a $0.75 cigarette. Have the arrest backfire and the guy dies. Neighborhood never calls police again. Next fight degrades into a shooting because residents don’t want to be arrested.
Which is better?
Sorry I meant Sunset Park which is the hem base of the Kings.
Once again you do not know what you are talking about in the real world. Stop and frisk is not aimed at “men of color.” All kinds of known knuckleheads were stopped and frisked. Yes there were gang bangers in Bed Stuy but there were a lot of others. Latin Kings in subset park. Ghost Shadows on Mott St. Guido Gambino wannabes in Bensonhurst. They have all been stopped and frisked. And arrested with guns.
Community policing is aimed at rousting the bad actors who destroy neighborhoods. It works. That is why crime is down. The criminals and their supporters like de Blasio want it to end. The murder of the two policemen is just the first act on the path to destruction.
rafflaw said…You can’t have a general policy of stopping and frisking men of color for that reason alone and that was what NYC was doing. Probable cause did not get in their way.
What would you consider evidence for or against your view on this?
Again, Bailers is right on target here. The T-shirt is in bad taste. It implies police state tactics: Do what we say or we’ll kill you. Of course, the officer has a first amendment right to sell the T-shirts. But that’s not the whole issue, and to pretend it is, is very short-sighted. The real questions are: What kind of policing do we want? What kind of relationship should there be between the police and the citizenry? What kind of relationship should there be between the police and the officials elected to represent the people (after all, no one elected the police)? Who is in charge of the police department? What kind of attitudes should be tolerated among the rank and file, whose mandate is “to serve”, not “to control.”