"You're disturbing my peace by waving @ me."

[kirkdbergeron]

Exactly what the cop should have done, walk away and laugh. No reason to do what he did. Most level headed officers would do the same thing. Which is a majority of officers I suspect/hope.

I think this was a blatened display of abuse of power, and I think the Nazi should be discharged for his actions!

Fight tha powa!

We gotta take the power back!

 

[Jimmy Dean]

I used to have plenty of interactions with Arkansas PDs. (what can I say, I used to speed like a bat out of hell....) Arkansas police, while we all make fun of people from arkansas as being backward rednecks and all, have always been extremely nice and polite and understanding.

I would get pulled over, and I would inform them that I had a firearm, normally loaded sitting on my passenger seat, and they would normally go 'ok'. Which...come to find out yhears later....is illegal. They where fine with it, from locals to state cops, because they felt that people had the right to have a defense handy. This video upholds that belief that arkansas police departments are very professional....more so than the rest of the state :P

cameraman is an idiot.....I would have to say that calling an officer a nazi and SS would be fighting words....if he had kept his mouth shut and they came and bothered him...that would have been a differant story....given what all happened...I have no problems with what happened.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

As much as the guy was a jackass for starting something, he's gonna get paid for that "tough boy" showing by the po po. No camera and he would have been beaten senseless and multiple "other charges" would have appeared. Cop should have ignored him and walked away.

[B]Well by your standards, shouldn't the cop have just beat him senseless anyway and erased or stolen the tape?[/B]


His speech is completely protected and doesn't come close to "fighting words" in the circumstances. They also can't ask for his drivers license while not in car. They can ask him to ID himself, IF they suspect a crime has been committed in order to investigate that, but in this case it's very weak.

He's gonna make a nice payday off officer toughboy.

Are you basing this off of some prior knowledge of Arkansas law or are you just offering your "opinon?" COuld you provide a statute to support your claim that the homeowner did not break a law? Perhaps the Arkansas statute for disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, or interfering with a police officer?

You may have missed it, but the officer asked for his DL or "some other form of ID" Obviously his goal was to ID him, not ascertain his driving status.

Just wondering how you came to such a conclusion. Thanks.

 

[Gerberman]

Are you basing this off of some prior knowledge of Arkansas law or are you just offering your "opinon?" COuld you provide a statute to support your claim that the homeowner did not break a law? Perhaps the Arkansas statute for disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, or interfering with a police officer?

You may have missed it, but the officer asked for his DL or "some other form of ID" Obviously his goal was to ID him, not ascertain his driving status.

Just wondering how you came to such a conclusion. Thanks.

It's the fact that the officer used the "catch all" disturbing the peace which as the video showed, was specious at best and won't stick. I didn't miss the fact that he asked for a DL or ID, but that's not required per the US Supremes which only said identify yourself, which a name given is sufficient. You know as well as I do that the cop was showing him "who's boss" and in his best "cool hand luke boss man" voice was going to do just that. I'm not arguing the homeowner was an ass for doing it, but just like flag burning, it's protected and the cops are expected to be able to deal with such minor situations. The cops even then bantered about the "racist" things he yelled. I promise you this guy like the infamous MEM or whoever that is, is going to get some nice dough out of the police for this matter.

Everyone seems to think that this applies only to an ass doing this. What about a cop spotting your legally concealed wepon bulging out the back of your shirt although it is still covered. I'm a cop and don't like that and BOOM you have a charge for disturbing the peace for what you did. No different. Unlikely, but no different. Some LEO applying the law to fit a situation that he doesn't like.

 

[Jimmy Dean]

It's the fact that the officer used the "catch all" disturbing the peace which as the video showed, was specious at best and won't stick. I didn't miss the fact that he asked for a DL or ID, but that's not required per the US Supremes which only said identify yourself, which a name given is sufficient. You know as well as I do that the cop was showing him "who's boss" and in his best "cool hand luke boss man" voice was going to do just that. I'm not arguing the homeowner was an ass for doing it, but just like flag burning, it's protected and the cops are expected to be able to deal with such minor situations. The cops even then bantered about the "racist" things he yelled. I promise you this guy like the infamous MEM or whoever that is, is going to get some nice dough out of the police for this matter.

Everyone seems to think that this applies only to an ass doing this. What about a cop spotting your legally concealed wepon bulging out the back of your shirt although it is still covered. I'm a cop and don't like that and BOOM you have a charge for disturbing the peace for what you did. No different. Unlikely, but no different. Some LEO applying the law to fit a situation that he doesn't like.

You see, Gerberman, there is a bit of a problem with your example on someone CCing.

If you are in Texas, and your CCW shows....you can, and very well may, get arrested and charged. If you are in Louisiana and your CCW shows....not the most that will happen is that the cop asks for your CHP, then lets you go about your business. Since Louisiana SC has stated that OC is legal and not disturbing the peace, then your CCW printing is not DtP either.

just pointing this out right quick....

(and as an fyi....by the lack of posts on here about people being arrested because their CCW printed, and the common sense that most, if not all, of the people on this site who CC have printed at some time or another...means that what I mentioned...is the truth)

last time I checked, yelling fire in a movie theatre can get you arrested...yelling racial slurs at people tends to be considered fighting words...which can get you arrested...

And yes, I would consider NAZI and SS racial slurs...seeing as how they intended to irradicate pretty much everyone but the 'Master Race'.

 

[charlie12]

As much as the guy was a jackass for starting something, he's gonna get paid for that "tough boy" showing by the po po. No camera and he would have been beaten senseless and multiple "other charges" would have appeared. Cop should have ignored him and walked away.

His speech is completely protected and doesn't come close to "fighting words" in the circumstances. They also can't ask for his drivers license while not in car. They can ask him to ID himself, IF they suspect a crime has been committed in order to investigate that, but in this case it's very weak.

He's gonna make a nice payday off officer toughboy.

What state are you from since you seems to know what the laws in Arkansas are and you don't have it in your profile?

 

[Nolacopusmc]

It's the fact that the officer used the "catch all" disturbing the peace which as the video showed, was specious at best and won't stick. I didn't miss the fact that he asked for a DL or ID, but that's not required per the US Supremes which only said identify yourself, which a name given is sufficient. You know as well as I do that the cop was showing him "who's boss" and in his best "cool hand luke boss man" voice was going to do just that. I'm not arguing the homeowner was an ass for doing it, but just like flag burning, it's protected and the cops are expected to be able to deal with such minor situations. The cops even then bantered about the "racist" things he yelled. I promise you this guy like the infamous MEM or whoever that is, is going to get some nice dough out of the police for this matter.

Everyone seems to think that this applies only to an ass doing this. What about a cop spotting your legally concealed wepon bulging out the back of your shirt although it is still covered. I'm a cop and don't like that and BOOM you have a charge for disturbing the peace for what you did. No different. Unlikely, but no different. Some LEO applying the law to fit a situation that he doesn't like.

I understand what you are saying, I really do. However, what I think you fail to realize is that while you may think that what the guy did SHOULD NOT be illegal, depending on how Arkansas words their statutes, it very well may be.

So, the cop did nothing wrong and addressed a criminal act, same as littering, running a stop sign, panhandling, prostitution, etc. Just because you think it may be "chickenshit" or the fact that it is illegal is a violation of freedom, does not change the fact that as far as "the State" is concerned, it is a violation and thus open for the cop to investigate and/ or address.

FOr example, if we were to take that situation and apply it in LA, the following would apply.

Our Disturbing the Peace would most specifically apply to what the guy said, as it is not s much of a "catch all" as some people think it is. The actions have to fit a very specific set of criteria.

No doubt when the guy started calling the officer a Nazi without provocation, it fits the below. No question in any court in LA that I have been in.....

14:§103. Disturbing the peace

A. Disturbing the peace is the doing of any of the following in such manner as would foreseeably disturb or alarm the public:

(1) Engaging in a fistic encounter; or

(2) Addressing any offensive, derisive, or annoying words to any other person who is lawfully in any street, or other public place; or call him by any offensive or derisive name, or make any noise or exclamation in his presence and hearing with the intent to deride, offend, or annoy him, or to prevent him from pursuing his lawful business, occupation, or duty; or

(3) Appearing in an intoxicated condition; or

(4) Engaging in any act in a violent and tumultuous manner by any three or more persons; or

(5) Holding of an unlawful assembly; or

(6) Interruption of any lawful assembly of people; or

(7) Intentionally engaging in any act or any utterance, gesture, or display designed to disrupt a funeral, funeral home viewing, funeral procession, wake, memorial service, or burial of a deceased person.

(8) Intentionally blocking, impeding, inhibiting, or in any other manner obstructing or interfering with access into or from any building or parking lot of a building in which a funeral, wake, memorial service, or burial is being conducted, or any burial plot or the parking lot of the cemetery in which a funeral, wake, memorial service, or burial is being conducted.

B.(1) Whoever commits the crime of disturbing the peace shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars or imprisoned for not more than ninety days, or both.

(2) Whoever commits the crime of disturbing the peace as provided in Paragraphs (A)(7) and (8) of this Section shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.

Amended by Acts 1960, No. 70, §1; Acts 1963, No. 93, §1; Acts 1968, No. 647, §1; Acts 1979, No. 222, §1; Acts 2006, No. 805, §1.

Now, as far as the interfering with an officer claim, I cannot find the state charge as it may have been amended or repealed, but there are at least two separate parish and/or city ordinances that i could immediately charge the guy in the video with.

Fact is, what he did is illegal by MOST standards, Maybe you do not think it should be illegal, but it is. Cops did nothing wrong. They COULD have used discretion and just ignored him, and seeing as how he had a camera and was behaving the way he did, which is the MEM Asshat SOP, that should have been a clue to just let it go.

However, unless Arkansas law differs greatly from other states, they were legally justified in their actions. Kinda like Jaywalking.









FYI you DO NOT have a right to burn and/or desecrate the flag. It is a crime....

14:§116. Flag desecration

Flag desecration is the act of any person who shall intentionally, in any manner, for exhibition or display:

(1) Place or cause to be placed any word, mark, design or advertisement of any nature upon any flag; or

(2) Expose to public view any flag, upon which has been printed or otherwise produced, or to which shall have been attached any such word, mark, design, or advertisement; or

(3) Expose to public view, or have in possession for sale or any other purpose, any article of merchandise, or thing for holding or carrying merchandise, upon or to which shall have been produced or attached any flag, in order to advertise, call attention to or decorate such article; or

(4) Publicly mutilate, defile, or by word or act cast contempt upon any flag.

The word "flag" as used herein shall mean any duly authorized flag, shield, standard, color or ensign of the United States, the State of Louisiana, or the Confederate States of America, or any copy thereof.

Whoever commits the crime of flag desecration shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars, or imprisoned for not more than ninety days, or both.

Amended by Acts 1960, No. 544, §1.

However, specifically burning is dependent on Congress..

14:§116.1. Flag burning

A. Flag burning is the act of any person who intentionally burns or sets fire to the United States flag to cast contempt upon the flag.

B. This Section shall not prohibit the burning of the flag in a respectful retirement ceremony to dispose of a worn or soiled flag.

C. The word "flag" as used in this Section shall mean the flag of the United States.

D. Whoever commits the crime of flag burning shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars, or imprisoned for not more than ninety days, or both.

E. The provisions of this Section shall not take effect unless and until an amendment to the federal constitution regarding flag desecration is proposed by the Congress and approved by the requisite number of states and becomes law.

Acts 2006, No. 506, §1.

 

[gonepecan]

What an idiot.

What do we always say? Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

He should have kept his mouth shut.

I LOL'ed at his "beautiful" grass.

 

[eliska]

And when someone is breaking into this guy's house next week, I suppose he is not going to call the "Nazis" to come help?

 

[Bullet]

And when someone is breaking into this guy's house next week, I suppose he is not going to call the "Nazis" to come help?

You betcha he's gonna call. They all do. It would be irony if the ball headed nazi saves his ass.

 

[eliska]

And I love the people who won't "get involved" when they witness a crime or have info but then don't understand why the police can't solve crimes against them or their family.

 

[Hardballing]

103MEM LOL

There. Fixed it.

Damn man, I had to go thru 4 other pages to see if anyone got this yet.

You're slippin Doood.

P.S. Your point about "wanting it to be legal" and being legal are 100% correct and on point imo. Legal is written and subject to interpretation. Unfortunately for the individual here, the first interpretation is always on the part of LEO.

May win in court, but you'll definately lose on the street. NOT the place to argue your case. ANY case.

 

[Gerberman]

You see, Gerberman, there is a bit of a problem with your example on someone CCing.

If you are in Texas, and your CCW shows....you can, and very well may, get arrested and charged. If you are in Louisiana and your CCW shows....not the most that will happen is that the cop asks for your CHP, then lets you go about your business. Since Louisiana SC has stated that OC is legal and not disturbing the peace, then your CCW printing is not DtP either.

just pointing this out right quick....

(and as an fyi....by the lack of posts on here about people being arrested because their CCW printed, and the common sense that most, if not all, of the people on this site who CC have printed at some time or another...means that what I mentioned...is the truth)

last time I checked, yelling fire in a movie theatre can get you arrested...yelling racial slurs at people tends to be considered fighting words...which can get you arrested...

And yes, I would consider NAZI and SS racial slurs...seeing as how they intended to irradicate pretty much everyone but the 'Master Race'.

There is no problem with my example. The LEO thinks you are "disturbing the peace" after someone reports you carrying a gun, whether legal or not and boom, you "got charges" simple as that.

As for the "laws on the books" it is still "illegal" to marry outside your race in many states. Just b/c it's on the books doesn't make it constitutional.

 

[rebelray84]

I understand what you are saying, I really do. However, what I think you fail to realize is that while you may think that what the guy did SHOULD NOT be illegal, depending on how Arkansas words their statutes, it very well may be.

So, the cop did nothing wrong and addressed a criminal act, same as littering, running a stop sign, panhandling, prostitution, etc. Just because you think it may be "chickenshit" or the fact that it is illegal is a violation of freedom, does not change the fact that as far as "the State" is concerned, it is a violation and thus open for the cop to investigate and/ or address.

FOr example, if we were to take that situation and apply it in LA, the following would apply.

Our Disturbing the Peace would most specifically apply to what the guy said, as it is not s much of a "catch all" as some people think it is. The actions have to fit a very specific set of criteria.

No doubt when the guy started calling the officer a Nazi without provocation, it fits the below. No question in any court in LA that I have been in.....Quote:
14:§103. Disturbing the peace

A. Disturbing the peace is the doing of any of the following in such manner as would foreseeably disturb or alarm the public:

(1) Engaging in a fistic encounter; or

(2) Addressing any offensive, derisive, or annoying words to any other person who is lawfully in any street, or other public place; or call him by any offensive or derisive name, or make any noise or exclamation in his presence and hearing with the intent to deride, offend, or annoy him, or to prevent him from pursuing his lawful business, occupation, or duty; or

(3) Appearing in an intoxicated condition; or

(4) Engaging in any act in a violent and tumultuous manner by any three or more persons; or

(5) Holding of an unlawful assembly; or

(6) Interruption of any lawful assembly of people; or

(7) Intentionally engaging in any act or any utterance, gesture, or display designed to disrupt a funeral, funeral home viewing, funeral procession, wake, memorial service, or burial of a deceased person.

(8) Intentionally blocking, impeding, inhibiting, or in any other manner obstructing or interfering with access into or from any building or parking lot of a building in which a funeral, wake, memorial service, or burial is being conducted, or any burial plot or the parking lot of the cemetery in which a funeral, wake, memorial service, or burial is being conducted.

B.(1) Whoever commits the crime of disturbing the peace shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars or imprisoned for not more than ninety days, or both.

(2) Whoever commits the crime of disturbing the peace as provided in Paragraphs (A)(7) and (8) of this Section shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.

Amended by Acts 1960, No. 70, §1; Acts 1963, No. 93, §1; Acts 1968, No. 647, §1; Acts 1979, No. 222, §1; Acts 2006, No. 805, §1.






Now, as far as the interfering with an officer claim, I cannot find the state charge as it may have been amended or repealed, but there are at least two separate parish and/or city ordinances that i could immediately charge the guy in the video with.

Fact is, what he did is illegal by MOST standards, Maybe you do not think it should be illegal, but it is. Cops did nothing wrong. They COULD have used discretion and just ignored him, and seeing as how he had a camera and was behaving the way he did, which is the MEM Asshat SOP, that should have been a clue to just let it go.

However, unless Arkansas law differs greatly from other states, they were legally justified in their actions. Kinda like Jaywalking.









FYI you DO NOT have a right to burn and/or desecrate the flag. It is a crime....

Quote:
14:§116. Flag desecration

Flag desecration is the act of any person who shall intentionally, in any manner, for exhibition or display:

(1) Place or cause to be placed any word, mark, design or advertisement of any nature upon any flag; or

(2) Expose to public view any flag, upon which has been printed or otherwise produced, or to which shall have been attached any such word, mark, design, or advertisement; or

(3) Expose to public view, or have in possession for sale or any other purpose, any article of merchandise, or thing for holding or carrying merchandise, upon or to which shall have been produced or attached any flag, in order to advertise, call attention to or decorate such article; or

(4) Publicly mutilate, defile, or by word or act cast contempt upon any flag.

The word "flag" as used herein shall mean any duly authorized flag, shield, standard, color or ensign of the United States, the State of Louisiana, or the Confederate States of America, or any copy thereof.

Whoever commits the crime of flag desecration shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars, or imprisoned for not more than ninety days, or both.

Amended by Acts 1960, No. 544, §1.




However, specifically burning is dependent on Congress..

s



Quote:
14:§116.1. Flag burning

A. Flag burning is the act of any person who intentionally burns or sets fire to the United States flag to cast contempt upon the flag.

B. This Section shall not prohibit the burning of the flag in a respectful retirement ceremony to dispose of a worn or soiled flag.

C. The word "flag" as used in this Section shall mean the flag of the United States.

D. Whoever commits the crime of flag burning shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars, or imprisoned for not more than ninety days, or both.

E. The provisions of this Section shall not take effect unless and until an amendment to the federal constitution regarding flag desecration is proposed by the Congress and approved by the requisite number of states and becomes law.

Acts 2006, No. 506, §1.


The courts have ruled that a police officers peace cannot be disturbed while he is on duty.Unless there are civilans present a police officer can not charge someone with disturbing the peace.In the video no one is seen except the loud mouth jerk and the police.Unless he had neighbors close by who could be disturbed by his big mouth,he could not be legally charged,at least not here in LA.

The courts have also ruled that flag burning is protected under the 1st amendment as freedom of speech.

This-"E. The provisions of this Section shall not take effect unless and until an amendment to the federal constitution regarding flag desecration is proposed by the Congress and approved by the requisite number of states and becomes law."-Makes everything above it null and void until such time that an amendment to the constitution is passed.

Should the police have just walked off after being called Nazis by the jerk off?Not in my opinion.You let someone do that and whats next?Throwing rocks or bottles?Then after that?Taking a few shots at us?

As for flag burning,let me make myself clear,I would be EXTREMELY pissed if I ever saw someone doing that on or off duty and would take some type of action,just couldn't charge them with flag desecration.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

s



Quote:
14:§116.1. Flag burning

A. Flag burning is the act of any person who intentionally burns or sets fire to the United States flag to cast contempt upon the flag.

B. This Section shall not prohibit the burning of the flag in a respectful retirement ceremony to dispose of a worn or soiled flag.

C. The word "flag" as used in this Section shall mean the flag of the United States.

D. Whoever commits the crime of flag burning shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars, or imprisoned for not more than ninety days, or both.

E. The provisions of this Section shall not take effect unless and until an amendment to the federal constitution regarding flag desecration is proposed by the Congress and approved by the requisite number of states and becomes law.

Acts 2006, No. 506, §1.


The courts have ruled that a police officers peace cannot be disturbed while he is on duty.Unless there are civilans present a police officer can not charge someone with disturbing the peace.In the video no one is seen except the loud mouth jerk and the police.Unless he had neighbors close by who could be disturbed by his big mouth,he could not be legally charged,at least not here in LA.

The courts have also ruled that flag burning is protected under the 1st amendment as freedom of speech.

This-"E. The provisions of this Section shall not take effect unless and until an amendment to the federal constitution regarding flag desecration is proposed by the Congress and approved by the requisite number of states and becomes law."-Makes everything above it null and void until such time that an amendment to the constitution is passed.

Should the police have just walked off after being called Nazis by the jerk off?Not in my opinion.You let someone do that and whats next?Throwing rocks or bottles?Then after that?Taking a few shots at us?

As for flag burning,let me make myself clear,I would be EXTREMELY pissed if I ever saw someone doing that on or off duty and would take some type of action,just couldn't charge them with flag desecration.

What you are referring to was the general "catch-all" DTP charge. The area I bolded specifically says "any" and specifically calls out someone in the performance of their occupation and duty.

Regardless, I can show you about 100 people I know personally who went to jail and or paid a fine over doing pretty much some form of what the guy in the video did under similar circumstances.

A lot of what you are referring to will have to do how the judges in a certain jurisdiction "legislate" from the bench by what they choose to enforce and what they choose not to.

Also, it is relevant that this guys' attack was directed specifically to the officer, so the officer is the victim. WHat you are referring to is when "society" is listed as the victim in the offense. For example, if a guy is blasting his music in his drop down celica in his driveway, an officer cannot write him a traffic citation because it is private property. That particular behavior does not fall under any of the subsections of the LARS 14:103 statute, and unless there is a local ordnance specifically addressing that act, there is nothing an officer can do.

Honestly, the more appropriate charge would probably be a version of "Interferring", but it is not beyond the realm of possibility (I know first hand) for a scenario like this to end up with the above charge.

I see what you are getting at, but by most standards, at least in the jurisdictions I have been in, being in a public place is enough. Of course, the severity and nature of the offense often plays into it also.

There is no definitive formula. I watched in the same day, the same judge let a guy walk with 6 months probation for punching a cop in the back the head while he was breaking up a fight and it was clear as day on video, and within the hour, give a guy 3 months jailtime for cursing out his neighbor in front of his house.

JUDGES HAVE A SCARY AMOUNT OF POWER. They can pretty much do whatever they want.

Laws at this point pretty much serve as a suggestion for judges.

 

[W1nds0rF0x]

And yes, I would consider NAZI and SS racial slurs...seeing as how they intended to irradicate pretty much everyone but the 'Master Race'.

Not possible, Nazi, Jew and SS are not races. Germans and Jews are actually of the same race, so yes they had it wrong. Either way with German heritage on both sides of my family I find it somewhat offensive. On that note however, I have to say that I have yet to see someone use the term for offense who actually got it correct or knew what the Nazi's were and what they stood for.

 

[Gerberman]

JUDGES HAVE A SCARY AMOUNT OF POWER. They can pretty much do whatever they want.

This is true! Most don't abuse it but some do. Most people wind up "accepting" bogus charges because they don''t have the money or sense to challenge the crap they get charged with. If they did, most of the charges would get dropped by the DA or the judge or be ruled unconstitutional.
Take care all!

 

[tactical723]

I do beleive this guy has freedom of speech, but it appears to be the early morning hours and he is yelling from 50 yds away at them for no more reason but to cause a scene, I think their charge will hold up as he is yelling derogatory commenets to them in a quiet neighborhood only for the reason to incite a response. Just remember this is not a organized rally or mid day meeting where such comments would not looked at twice, it is a quite neighborhood, did he have a permit to protest, no do not beleive, this is criminal mischief and there is a charge for that as well, he is also disrupting a criminal investigation at the traffic stop, there is a charge for that too,

Let's face it, he was not speaking his mind in front of political like / anti minded members such as a rally, family, or neighbors, it was directed straight to the cops for no other reason to push them to the limits of arrest and tresspassing =, he has dared them to do something to him, no other reason, PERIOD

The problem is no matter what the outcome in the criminal trial, chances are he already had an attny before this started and this will brought to the civil rights arena, thats what he was hoping for the whole time

 

[Jimmy Dean]

Not possible, Nazi, Jew and SS are not races. Germans and Jews are actually of the same race, so yes they had it wrong. Either way with German heritage on both sides of my family I find it somewhat offensive. On that note however, I have to say that I have yet to see someone use the term for offense who actually got it correct or knew what the Nazi's were and what they stood for.

I very well know what the term NAZI stands for, national socialists party, but, they where a political orginization who stood for the promotion of a specific race and specific genetic traits as well as certain religious beliefs.

Their belief in a racial superiority would classify them as a racists group and therefore the use of the term nazi could be used as a racial slur.

 

[Gerberman]

I very well know what the term NAZI stands for, national socialists party, but, they where a political orginization who stood for the promotion of a specific race and specific genetic traits as well as certain religious beliefs.

Their belief in a racial superiority would classify them as a racists group and therefore the use of the term nazi could be used as a racial slur.

Dude, you are so far off base about that being a "racist" term it's not funny. Also, the cop had to ask him to "REPEAT" what he said b/c he didn't hear it the first time! NO WAY that is disturbing the peace.