Talk:Edward C. Lawson

message: The statement “it represented the end of ‘stop and ID laws’ for the entire United States” is seriously in error. The U.S. Supreme Court voided California Penal Code §647(e) for vagueness, relying on a construction given that law by a California appellate court in People v. Solomon (1973), 33 Cal.App.3d 429. Consequently, it did not necessarily invalidate nominally identical laws in other states. And the Court did not rule on Fourth Amendment or Fifth Amendment considerations, setting the stage for Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada in 2004, which essentially upheld the validity of “stop-and-identify” laws. JeffConrad (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The end of “stop-and-identify” laws 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Edward C. Lawson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060810180635/http://edwardlawson.com/ to http://edwardlawson.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100614063454/http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/lawpolice/facultyprofile/shane.asp to http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/lawpolice/facultyprofile/shane.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061211080819/http://www.library.okstate.edu/hss/chaney/tulsa-race-riots.htm to http://www.library.okstate.edu/hss/chaney/tulsa-race-riots.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The article currently tells us nothing about his life… and nothing about his death.
Remarkable for a biographical entry in an encyclopedia.
I presume there's been at least one book published with at least one chapter containing information of this kind?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BDB3:8D00:C1F5:5A4:DD8C:C641 (talk) 05:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very little biographical information, at present (2021) 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: In the opening paragraph, I changed "plaintiff" to "respondent," because that was Lawson's role in Kolender v. Lawson.
In a civil case or an appellate case, the party before "v." is always the plaintiff, and the party after "v." is always the respondent.
In a criminal case, there is some disagreement whether the party before "v." is the plaintiff versus the prosecution, but that is moot because Lawson was the defendant in the original criminal case and did not appeal that case.
The last paragraph in topic Civil rights case refers to Lawson as "defendant," without any citation. Site Alchetron has this identical paragraph, also without any citation. I Googled that topic and found no original sources. DavidForthoffer (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Plaintiff" versus "respondent" versus "defendant"