You have the right, the 5th Amendment, to remain silent. Use it. Don't be a witness against yourself

Remember, a cop's job is to put you in jail.  They use force and the threat of force out on the streets, get you to sign a citation on the streets, and then leave it up to the courts, lawyers, and judges to put you away.  Oh, wait, I'm sorry, the police are there to "protect and serve."

A jury of 12 people are currently deciding if Daniel Penny will spend the next 15 years in prison & if he’s convicted it might be because he was naïve enough to speak with police without an attorney present. Just because they approach you as your friend doesn’t mean they are…… pic.twitter.com/dWxRVQvWrz

— Brett Pike (@ClassicLearner) December 5, 2024

Penny's situation reminds me a little of the Eric Garner murder by NYPD officers, murdering him for selling individual cigarettes to folks who couldn't or didn't want to buy a full pack.

Robert Wenzel's assessment of confronting police on the streets is smart.

Courts are certainly not completely fair but you will have a much better chance than by resisting on the street.

That said, there is a lot of talk in the media about “police brutality,” but when it comes down to it, all police confrontations are about, at a minimum, implied police violence. You are either going to have to follow a copper’s requests, or he is going to escalate as far as he has to—to death (yours), if necessary.

To lower the amount of “police brutality,” a society needs to lower the number of potential confrontations police have with the public.

The confrontation the police had with Garner was allegedly over his selling loose cigarettes. It was probably a bogus claim, but the police needed some cover story.  The question remains, though, why should police be enforcers preventing private transactions over loose cigarettes? Forget government cigarette tax laws, one would  think that police on patrol are supposedly on patrol “to protect the public” against violence, not enforce government edicts. 

Elsewhere, Wenzel makes this excellent point, 

In NYC, the cops involved in the scuffle with Garner were not local sidewalk cops.

The cops in those confrontations did not know Brown and Garner and so they had no way to judge how much of a real threat they were. And there was the “us versus them” mentality on both sides, partly because of the zero-tolerance policy. Wilson ordering Brown to the sidewalk and NYPD cops attempting to arrest Garner for selling loosies. 

Don't ignore this classic by James Duane. 

Marvin Horne's Supreme Court Case dealt a blow to the last of the New Deal-era farm programs that authorize growers to join together to prop up the market prices for their products

I love this story. https://t.co/Y99B5vdcZA

— Wejolyn 🇺🇸 (@Wejolyn) October 15, 2024

California raisin farmer, Marvin Horne, stands in a field of grapevines planted in 1918 next to his home in Kerman. (GARY KAZANJIAN / AP)

NPR explains, 

Marvin and Laura Horne used to follow these rules and abide by the committee's decision. But something happened years ago that made them decide to go outside the system: In 2002, the Raisin Administrative Committee voted for a particularly big diversion. Instead of letting the farmers sell all their raisins, they decided to divert a ton of them into the raisin "reserve" — 47 percent.

"A lot of we all jumped up and yelled, and said, 'No, it's crazy. What's the matter with you guys?' " says Marvin Horne. "It was no avail, and that's when I came home, and I talked with my wife, and we said, 'No, we're not going to deliver.' "

The Hornes knew if they didn't deliver to the raisin reserve, they might be breaking the law. So they started researching. They got a hold of the actual legislation where this is laid out, Marketing Order Part 989, and the Hornes say they found a loophole in the law. Loophole in hand, they set up their own packing operation a couple of years ago and started selling all their raisins.  

The Raisin Administrative Committee does not agree with the Hornes' legal interpretation. They say the Hornes are breaking the law and should be punished.

What happened next is proof of how upside-down the world of raisins is. For not agreeing to participate in behavior that in many other industries would be considered collusion, the federal government sued the Hornes for hundreds of thousands of dollars in uncollected raisins and fines. The case went all the way up to the Supreme Court before being kicked down to a lower appeals court.

The Hornes are awaiting a decision.

The decision about how many raisins should be sold to the public isn't supposed to be made by individual farmers working on individual farms across California. It's supposed to be made by a group — the Raisin Administrative Committee. The committee gets together regularly to decide how to market the raisins of California, and they set grades and standards for California raisins. Another, more unusual, part of their work is determining how many raisins to sell to the public.  

In 2015, the Supreme Court sided with Marvin Horne.  The LA Times explains, 

Reporting from Washington —  

The Supreme Court has ruled for a California raisin grower and declared it was unconstitutional for a government-backed agricultural board to claim control of about one-third of his crop.

The justices said Marvin Horne from Fresno deserves to be compensated for the official seizure of his personal property.

The 5th Amendment forbids the government from taking private property without paying “just compensation,” and the high court said this protection applies to raisins as well as real estate.

The ruling deals a blow to the last of the New Deal-era farm programs that authorize growers to join together to prop up the market prices for their products. The raisin board had the support of most growers, and its “marketing orders” had the backing of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

New Deal-era indeed.

During the Great Depression raisin prices dropped over 80%. Congress reacted by passing the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 ("AMAA"). The AMAA allowed United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") to issue marketing orders and agreements holding a portion of harvests in reserve so as to inflate prices. Authority to determine the annual portion of "reserve tonnage" raisins that were held by the government and the "free tonnage" raisins that owners may sell on the open market was delegated by USDA to the Raisin Administrative Committee, a body composed of raisin industry representatives appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture 

Back to the LA Times article. 

Horne, however, preferred to sell raisins on his own, and he accused the board of “stealing his crop.” 

The USDA defended the board and said these collective actions helped to stabilize the market and prevent sharp swings in prices. The “reserve” portion of the crop is sometimes sold overseas or is given to schools as part of the school lunch program.

Government lawyers said growers like Horne benefited in the end because they obtained higher prices for raisins sold on the open market.

Chief Justice Roberts said the “reserve requirement imposed by the Raisin Committee is a clear physical taking. Actual raisins are transferred from the growers to the government.”

The 5th Amendment requires the government to pay “just compensation” if it seizes someone’s land for public use, and the same principle applies to raisins, he said.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito agreed.

The ruling means the Hornes do not have to pay the large fines imposed by the USDA.

“The Hornes should simply be relieved of the obligation to pay the fine and associated civil penalty they were assessed when they resisted the government’s effort to take their raisins,” Roberts said.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented and said the government had not taken all of Horne’s property but simply regulated the sale of raisins.

Three others, led by Justice Stephen Breyer, said a lower court should first consider how the Hornes benefited from higher raisin prices before calculating how much compensation they deserve.

California produces 99% of the nation’s raisins and about 40% of the world crop.

Horne's legal battle against a federal agency lasted 11 years. 

Horne’s victory was long in coming. In 2004, he was accused of violating the USDA’s marketing order for failing to turn over the required “reserve” portion of his crop in 2003 and 2004. He was hit with fines of $685,000.

He then went to federal court in California, arguing the seizure of his raisins was unconstitutional. He lost before a district judge and twice before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which said the marketing orders were a type of business regulation.