Quote Originally Posted by BrianShaw View Post
OK, understood. I was thinking more along the lines of whether a cop had a "real" reason to cite/arrest for loitering, disturbing peace, or other things where there may be differing opinions and some sort of higher point at stake. I was thinking in situatio where one could question "how long does it have to be before one is "really" loitering?" or "Whose peace was "really" disturbed or were they just momentarily bothered?". But I suppose your reply will say that "safe" was just an example and also included as other examples are "disruptive", "interfering", and "annoying". I understand why you say a judge wouldn't bother getting in the middle of that kind of conversation.
I don't know about the U.S., but elsewhere judges most certainly do "get into the middle" of that kind of conversation. It's their job. On a charge of disturbing the peace, the fundamental issue is whether, as a matter of fact, the accused was or was not disturbing the peace. It isn't a matter of a police officer standing up and saying "I think that he was disturbing the peace," and that's the end of it. At least, that's not how it works in any courtroom that I've ever tried a case in.

In part, Cyrus's argument seems to be that this has to be recognized as a constitutional right because the U.S. court process is otherwise a joke, which is pretty pathetic if true.