• 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!

Maybe the dumbest decision I've ever read

trixare4kids said:
tenor.gif
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that's a white power sign or a Nazi thing or something equally as horrible.
 
Lutherf said:
I'm pretty sure that's a white power sign or a Nazi thing or something equally as horrible.
Click to expand...

You mean, sort of like this?
tenor.gif
 
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
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Yeah okay, maybe the neighbor (Neighbor A?) with their double barreled middle finger salute should have gotten some heat, too.
Click to expand...
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.

The whole thing is dumb snd should of never seen the inside of a courtroom but since they took it to that extreme they should of least been even handed about it. By the court taking a side it may of done what it accussed the defendant of. They may of esculated a dangerous situtaiin by choosing a winner and a loser. Imo it would of been better if the court fined both of them and told them all to stop the nonsense and stop wasting valuable court time.

I would also like to know more about what lead to the no contact order. The details of that may be what influenced the court to rule the way it did.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
justabubba said:
Common sense ruling by the judge
The perp violated the no contact provision
Obvious call
Click to expand...
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 decision

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
AlbqOwl said:
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.
Click to expand...
Context matters i can see how that gesture could be construed as a threat.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Context matters i can see how that gesture could be construed as a threat.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes. 99% of the time, no issue whatsoever. But in some contexts, yeah, a threat.
 
trouble13 said:
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
Click to expand...
[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
 
justabubba said:
[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
Click to expand...
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
 
trouble13 said:
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
Click to expand...

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:
Maybe the dumbest decision I've ever read
Click to expand...


edit: i had to check to make sure you were not the OP
 
justabubba said:
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
Click to expand...
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
 
trouble13 said:
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
Click to expand...

easy answer:
the perp used the gesture to violate the no-contact provision the court had previously established
 
Lutherf said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually reading the link.. and the context and history between the two.. I think the disorderly conduct conviction should stand.
 
trouble13 said:
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
Click to expand...

I 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.
 
Lursa said:
I 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.
Click to expand...
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
 
trouble13 said:
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
Click to expand...

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?
 
Lursa said:
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?
Click to expand...
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
 
Lutherf said:
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.
Click to expand...

Clue, a gun represents a violent act, the middle figure does not carry the same violent connotation.
 
noonereal said:
Clue, a gun represents a violent act, the middle figure does not carry the same violent connotation.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Lutherf said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Lutherf said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your reasoning is void of insight.
 
bongsaway said:
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?
Click to expand...

They like law and order when it serves their agenda and is punitive.
 
bongsaway said:
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?
Click to expand...

With all due respect, not every decision a judge makes is a proper one. Judges are every bit as susceptible to personal biases, errors in judgement and emotional reactions as you and I are. In this case I suspect that the judge simply had enough of a guy wo couldn't resist being an insufferable jerk and made a decision to send a message.
 
trouble13 said:
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
Click to expand...

Good lord.

Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom