Indians Protest After Lunatic And His Gullible Followers Think Surgical Scars Are “KKK” Branding By Rapid City South Dakota Hospital Doctors

May 22, 2012

RAPID CITY, SOUTH DAKOTA – Supporters of a Cheyenne River tribe member Who claims Rapid City Regional Hospital branded his skin with three k’s are staging a rally and march in Rapid City.

American Indian Movement co-founder Dennis Banks was leading the event called Justice for Vern Traversie rally, which began at Memorial Park and was expected to continue to the hospital.

Traffic was backed up while the marchers made their way down Fifth Street over ther noon hour. gullible

In a YouTube video, Traversie says he went to the hospital last year for open heart surgery but claims he left with three k’s branded into his abdomen, presumably the intials of the Ku Klux Klan.

Rapid City police said they investigated Traversie’s claim and did not find enough evidence to pursue charges.

In a statement released by the hospital, CEO Tim Seghrue said, “the hospital is committed to providing all patients, regardless of race or culture, with compassionate and exceptional care. We are unable to comment on a patient’s treatment without consent.”

Appeared Here

Advertisements

South Dakota Court Reverses Mans Conviction On Bogus Charge For Swearing At Brookings Police Officers

January 6, 2009

BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA – A man who cursed at police officers in Brookings, S.D., engaged in protected free speech, the state high court has ruled.

The court voted 4-1 to reverse a lower court decision that had found Marcus Suhn used unprotected fighting words — defined by the U.S. Supreme Court more than 60 years ago as words “which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”

Marcus J. Suhn yelled a stream of profanities beginning with “Fucking cop” on the sidewalk at 2 a.m. after the bars closed on Sept. 2, 2007, as two police officers were riding down the street in their patrol car. One officer heard Suhn, got out of his patrol car, arrested him and charged him with disorderly conduct.

After a trial court convicted Suhn, he appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court, which reversed the ruling in its Dec. 30, 2008, opinion in State v. Suhn. The majority, in an opinion written by Justice Judith Meierhenry, examined the origins and development of the “fighting words” doctrine articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1942 decision Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. The Court affirmed the conviction of Walter Chaplinsky after he allegedly called a local marshal a “fascist” and a “racketeer,” which the Court held were fighting words unprotected by the First Amendment.

In subsequent decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed the fighting-words doctrine. In Cohen v. California (1971), the Court declined to apply the fighting-words exception to First Amendment protection in the case of a man who wore a jacket bearing the words “Fuck the Draft” in a California courthouse, holding the phrase to be protected speech. In later decisions — Gooding v. Wilson (1972) and Lewis v. New Orleans (1974) — the Court invalidated convictions of individuals who cursed police officers, finding that the ordinances in question were unconstitutionally overbroad.

Analyzing this development, Meierhenry wrote that “the United States Supreme Court has made it clear that in order for speech to fall within the ‘fighting words’ exception, the words by their very utterance have ‘to tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace’ under the circumstances of the case.”

According to Meierhenry, Suhn’s profanity about the police did not “tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace,” as the other people standing on Main Street did not react with any type of violence.

“The crowd merely responded with facial expressions of disbelief,” he wrote. “Just because someone may have been offended, annoyed, or even angered by Suhn’s words does not make them fighting words.”

In dissent, Justice Richard W. Sabers characterized the context of the case differently, referring to “the crowd in this mob-like setting.” He reasoned that “the facts of this case are such that defendant’s speech tended to incite a breach of the peace.”

Appeared Here


South Dakota Court Reverses Mans Conviction On Bogus Charge For Swearing At Brookings Police Officers

January 6, 2009

BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA – A man who cursed at police officers in Brookings, S.D., engaged in protected free speech, the state high court has ruled.

The court voted 4-1 to reverse a lower court decision that had found Marcus Suhn used unprotected fighting words — defined by the U.S. Supreme Court more than 60 years ago as words “which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”

Marcus J. Suhn yelled a stream of profanities beginning with “Fucking cop” on the sidewalk at 2 a.m. after the bars closed on Sept. 2, 2007, as two police officers were riding down the street in their patrol car. One officer heard Suhn, got out of his patrol car, arrested him and charged him with disorderly conduct.

After a trial court convicted Suhn, he appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court, which reversed the ruling in its Dec. 30, 2008, opinion in State v. Suhn. The majority, in an opinion written by Justice Judith Meierhenry, examined the origins and development of the “fighting words” doctrine articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1942 decision Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. The Court affirmed the conviction of Walter Chaplinsky after he allegedly called a local marshal a “fascist” and a “racketeer,” which the Court held were fighting words unprotected by the First Amendment.

In subsequent decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed the fighting-words doctrine. In Cohen v. California (1971), the Court declined to apply the fighting-words exception to First Amendment protection in the case of a man who wore a jacket bearing the words “Fuck the Draft” in a California courthouse, holding the phrase to be protected speech. In later decisions — Gooding v. Wilson (1972) and Lewis v. New Orleans (1974) — the Court invalidated convictions of individuals who cursed police officers, finding that the ordinances in question were unconstitutionally overbroad.

Analyzing this development, Meierhenry wrote that “the United States Supreme Court has made it clear that in order for speech to fall within the ‘fighting words’ exception, the words by their very utterance have ‘to tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace’ under the circumstances of the case.”

According to Meierhenry, Suhn’s profanity about the police did not “tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace,” as the other people standing on Main Street did not react with any type of violence.

“The crowd merely responded with facial expressions of disbelief,” he wrote. “Just because someone may have been offended, annoyed, or even angered by Suhn’s words does not make them fighting words.”

In dissent, Justice Richard W. Sabers characterized the context of the case differently, referring to “the crowd in this mob-like setting.” He reasoned that “the facts of this case are such that defendant’s speech tended to incite a breach of the peace.”

Appeared Here