• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US Hawaii: Lesbian pair held after kissing win damages

DA60 said:
I hope you are not in the teaching profession.

Imo, there are no dumb questions.
Click to expand...



In a classroom, maybe.

In an internet political forum there ARE dumb questions, asinine questions, and antagonizing questions. In this case it was absolutely clear the member hadn't bothered to read the article and asked a question that had absolutely NO relevance.

Even with that, most have totally missed the point. They didn't get $80k for kissing, but because there were arrested and held for three days for assaulting a police officer. If we were to see the further details you would see that the rule of 'tainted evidence" comes into play. The officer made physical contact first, which was highly questionable as legal, and the office had no cause to take physical action, as kissing and petting is not against the law.

It is typical that this forum would only see the sexual aspect and not the shoddy policig
 
CriticalThought said:
When Mississippi puts a kissing lesbian couple on the state flag, that might be closer to a valid argument.
Click to expand...

IOW, as long as it's something you agree with, you de5mans tolerance.
 
buck said:
Had a hetero couple been doing it.. They would have been asked to leave too. Had they not, likely same would have happened. You never would have heard about it on the news, because it wasn't too lesbians.
Click to expand...

Maybe. Maybe not.
 
apdst said:
A lot of liberals aren't being very tolerant of it, yet scream tolerance about everything else.
Click to expand...

I love the confederate flag. Nice and soft and my rear.
 
apdst said:
You can't handle it when the left wing double standard is exposed, can you?
Click to expand...

That is not what you have exposed. Now please pull your pants up...
 
Fearandloathing said:
In a classroom, maybe.

In an internet political forum there ARE dumb questions, asinine questions, and antagonizing questions. In this case it was absolutely clear the member hadn't bothered to read the article and asked a question that had absolutely NO relevance.

Even with that, most have totally missed the point. They didn't get $80k for kissing, but because there were arrested and held for three days for assaulting a police officer. If we were to see the further details you would see that the rule of 'tainted evidence" comes into play. The officer made physical contact first, which was highly questionable as legal, and the office had no cause to take physical action, as kissing and petting is not against the law.

It is typical that this forum would only see the sexual aspect and not the shoddy policig
Click to expand...

I personally believe people should always be encouraged to ask questions, never discouraged.

So long as the questioner is not forcing in any way the 'questionee' to answer said question, I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with ANY question - assuming it is asked sincerely and not simply to provoke a negative response.

Especially in a chat forum where ignoring a question is easier then answering it.

But each to their own.


For the record, I did not read the question...but unless it was asked with an obvious entent to offend/provoke negativity, I have no porblem with it.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
We gotta answer your simple questions but you can't answer ours? ... lol
Click to expand...

This is his method of deflection when he has nothing. He sides with this cop because birds of a feather flock together.
 
Paleocon said:
It's called lewd conduct. He was absolutely right to arrest those homosexual perverts. It's sad that the cowards on the city council have settled.
Click to expand...

You sound proud to be a bigot!
 
Exquisitor said:
If a police officer gives you an order you're supposed to obey it.
Click to expand...

You have to be in violation of a law first, and the prevailing case law says that no such violation was taking place.
Furthermore, since this "kissing" was taking place on private property, the property owner is the first authority and if they aren't filing any complaint, then there is a complete lack of civil issues or criminal, thus the police officer is not authorized to act on behalf of a property owner who is not claiming offense.

Lewd conduct is an infraction that is levied on persons acting in a lewd manner IN public.
They were not IN public.

That is why Honolulu decided, quite wisely, not to fight. They knew that they didn't have a legal leg to stand on and they knew the officer didn't either.
 
Paleocon said:
It's called lewd conduct. He was absolutely right to arrest those homosexual perverts. It's sad that the cowards on the city council have settled.
Click to expand...

It's called the store owner can handle it on his property. If the store owner felt it necessary to kick them out for being lewd, then he would have done it.

This cop is a dumbass mother****er.
 
Paleocon said:
They should never have dropped the charges in the first place.

It's a sad day when criminals can take the police to court for enforcing the law, but DAs are too cowardly to press charges against the criminals.
Click to expand...

You lose, too bad.
 
Paleocon said:
It's called lewd conduct. He was absolutely right to arrest those homosexual perverts. It's sad that the cowards on the city council have settled.
Click to expand...

Except that it wasn't lewd conduct. Your charge fails first and foremost because the "public display of affection" took place on private property, not in public. Had the property owner complained, there would have been a civil complaint and the officer could have used their discretion to make the couple comply with the property owner's wishes.
No such complaint existed, therefore the officer's only issue was the fact that they, like YOU, were personally offended.
Tough titty said the kitty.
 
Exquisitor said:
If a police officer gives you an order you're supposed to obey it.
Click to expand...

So if a cop told you to take a very long walk over a very short pier you'd do it?
 
Deuce said:
Not to mention the easiest thing in the world to manufacture is "resisting arrest." Just knock people around a little and they'll reflexively struggle (BECAUSE ALL HUMANS RESPOND THAT WAY TO PHYSICAL ASSAULT) and bam, resisting arrest.
Click to expand...

The witness actually indicates it was the girl that swung first:

The witness said she didn't know that a call to 911 had been made, but saw the officer try to take something out of Wilson's hand.

That's when the scuffle broke out, she said.

"I can't remember if it was an open hand or a punch but she got him right in the face," the witness said.
Click to expand...

The officer was cleared of all wrong doing by the internal investigation. So, I guess you may be right, but in this case it appears to have not occurred that way.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
You have to be in violation of a law first, and the prevailing case law says that no such violation was taking place.
Furthermore, since this "kissing" was taking place on private property, the property owner is the first authority and if they aren't filing any complaint, then there is a complete lack of civil issues or criminal, thus the police officer is not authorized to act on behalf of a property owner who is not claiming offense.

Lewd conduct is an infraction that is levied on persons acting in a lewd manner IN public.
They were not IN public.

That is why Honolulu decided, quite wisely, not to fight. They knew that they didn't have a legal leg to stand on and they knew the officer didn't either.
Click to expand...

A store is a public place.

Luftwaffe said:
It's called the store owner can handle it on his property. If the store owner felt it necessary to kick them out for being lewd, then he would have done it.

This cop is a dumbass mother****er.
Click to expand...

You don't have a right to engage in or permit lewd conduct on a part of your property that is open to the public.

Checkerboard Strangler said:
Except that it wasn't lewd conduct. Your charge fails first and foremost because the "public display of affection" took place on private property, not in public. Had the property owner complained, there would have been a civil complaint and the officer could have used their discretion to make the couple comply with the property owner's wishes.
No such complaint existed, therefore the officer's only issue was the fact that they, like YOU, were personally offended.
Tough titty said the kitty.
Click to expand...

The witness said it was lewd conduct.

Your understanding of lewd conduct law is non-existent. There's no lewd conduct statute that differentiates between public property and private. Only between public places and private.
 
DA60 said:
I personally believe people should always be encouraged to ask questions, never discouraged.

So long as the questioner is not forcing in any way the 'questionee' to answer said question, I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with ANY question - assuming it is asked sincerely and not simply to provoke a negative response.

Especially in a chat forum where ignoring a question is easier then answering it.

But each to their own.


For the record, I did not read the question...but unless it was asked with an obvious entent to offend/provoke negativity, I have no porblem with it.
Click to expand...



That's dangerous assumption in here
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom