- Joined
- Sep 16, 2012
- Messages
- 49,650
- Reaction score
- 55,263
- Location
- Tucson, AZ
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I'm pretty sure that's a white power sign or a Nazi thing or something equally as horrible.
I'm pretty sure that's a white power sign or a Nazi thing or something equally as horrible.
I'm pretty sure that's a white power sign or a Nazi thing or something equally as horrible.
Based on the courts reasoning i would say he absolutely should of been charged too. According to the ruling his guilt was predicated on the reasoning that his hand gesture created the potential to esculate a dangerous situtation. If thats the reasoning i dont see how flipping someone off isnt seen in the same way.Yeah okay, maybe the neighbor (Neighbor A?) with their double barreled middle finger salute should have gotten some heat, too.
There wasnt any no contact order on him. To no contact order was placed on the guy mulching his yard and it was with the others guys freind. Thats part of what i find puzzling about the courts decisionCommon sense ruling by the judge
The perp violated the no contact provision
Obvious call
Context matters i can see how that gesture could be construed as a threat.That's what I thought. That there must be much more to the story than that seemingly harmless gesture that any one of us might do symbollically or in jest.
Context matters i can see how that gesture could be construed as a threat.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
[emphasis added by bubba to illustrate the naivete on display]Personslly i think there is more to this story than meets the eye. I do lean toward agreeing with checkerboards opinion that the court was admonishing the guy for violating the spitit of the no contact order. Depending on the context of the gesture it could of been a threat.
I'm finding it a bit difficult difficult to accept this guys word at face value that he installed security cameras specifically because of this fued. I am curious if any evidence was presented to support that claim beyond his word.
Overall this whole things seems like a waste of the courts time and money to prosecute. The fact that they did and that they envoked a rather broad interpretation of an ambigiously worded legal standard is imo a form of misconduct by the prosecutor and judge.
If i were the defendent i would refuse to pay the fine and the court costs. I would take the jail time and drive the expenses for the state up even further.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
The taxpayers of course. Im not saying it would change anything. It would be a stand on principles. What is he gonna get a few days in jail for this, a week tops?[emphasis added by bubba to illustrate the naivete on display]
yea
now tell us who would actually notice the sting of that financial expenditure to keep you in prison
The taxpayers of course. Im not saying it would change anything. It would be a stand on principles. What is he gonna get a few days in jail for this, a week tops?
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Maybe the dumbest decision I've ever read
Yes if it were me i would take the jail time. I would also make sure the DA was forced to explain why he is jailing 64yr old men for finger pointing next election.let's summarize your position:
being found guilty you would prefer to go to prison rather than paying the fine
and you are doing that to show them the financial pain of having to incarcerate you
yet you acknowledge that there is actually no one "who will feel the financial pain"
thus, you have chosen to go to prison for nothing
such logic is worthy of a thread titled:
edit: i had to check to make sure you were not the OP
Yes if it were me i would take the jail time. I would also make sure the DA was forced to explain why he is jailing 64yr old men for finger pointing next election.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Court upholds conviction of man who pointed "finger gun" at neighbor
According to the article the finger gun gesture presented a serious risk of prompting an altercation but, apparently, the double barreled bird is't expected to have such an effect.
Fellow Americans, it's a pretty damned sad state of things when we have people suing each other over hand gestures and it's pretty damned pathetic that courts are actually hearing these cases.
Personslly i think there is more to this story than meets the eye. I do lean toward agreeing with checkerboards opinion that the court was admonishing the guy for violating the spitit of the no contact order. Depending on the context of the gesture it could of been a threat.
I'm finding it a bit difficult difficult to accept this guys word at face value that he installed security cameras specifically because of this fued. I am curious if any evidence was presented to support that claim beyond his word.
Overall this whole things seems like a waste of the courts time and money to prosecute. The fact that they did and that they envoked a rather broad interpretation of an ambigiously worded legal standard is imo a form of misconduct by the prosecutor and judge.
If i were the defendent i would refuse to pay the fine and the court costs. I would take the jail time and drive the expenses for the state up even further.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
He didnt have a no contact order, his friend did, which is why i think the judge may of fwlt they were trying to get around that order by proxyI agree with that (the text I bolded) and that's why upholding the disorderly conduct violation bothers me...if he was indeed violating the no contact order, then he should have been charged with that. That has specific application to those 2 individuals only.
But to charge someone for DC for that hand gesture...that leaves such interpretation open to application to everyone. (perhaps with extenuating circumstances, since the individuals did have 'history.)
So I dont like the charge itself.
He didnt have a no contact order, his friend did, which is why i think the judge may of fwlt they were trying to get around that order by proxy
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
There was 3 people involved as i understand it.Well that's what I meant, I realize the other neighbor had the order against the convicted guy. Or are you saying someone else besides the neighbor had the no contact order? A friend?
Court upholds conviction of man who pointed "finger gun" at neighbor
According to the article the finger gun gesture presented a serious risk of prompting an altercation but, apparently, the double barreled bird is't expected to have such an effect.
Fellow Americans, it's a pretty damned sad state of things when we have people suing each other over hand gestures and it's pretty damned pathetic that courts are actually hearing these cases.
Clue, a gun represents a violent act, the middle figure does not carry the same violent connotation.
I did read the decision and it's crap. The judge determined that the act was "public" because another neighbor saw it. If the neighbor saw that act then she could have seen the double bird as well which made THAT act public and, in the esteemed justice's world, also subject to the statute in question.
The trial judge should have told them to get the **** out of his or her court. That would have been the proper way to handle things.
A finger is a finger and a gun is a gun. Pointing your finger at me means one ting while pointing your gun at me means quite another.
Seriously, the fact that you even come up with crap like this really makes me scratch my head.
Have a problem with the law luther? Aren't you folks on the right the ones who claim you are for law and order. Or is that just the laws you agree with?
Have a problem with the law luther? Aren't you folks on the right the ones who claim you are for law and order. Or is that just the laws you agree with?
There was 3 people involved as i understand it.
The man who had lived at the house had a no contact order put on him by his fekale neighbor. Her freind is the one who flipped the guy the bird
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk