Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats. (https://www.miataturbo.net/)
-   Current Events, News, Politics (https://www.miataturbo.net/current-events-news-politics-77/)
-   -   The hero warrior cop is ready to get roided up, rape, and drink and drive (https://www.miataturbo.net/current-events-news-politics-77/hero-warrior-cop-ready-get-roided-up-rape-drink-drive-73864/)

Braineack 08-28-2014 02:36 PM

all miata owners are gay and love cats and/or ponies.

Joe Perez 08-28-2014 02:58 PM

1 Attachment(s)

Originally Posted by Braineack (Post 1162042)
all miata owners are gay and love cats and/or ponies.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1409252299

Enginerd 08-28-2014 09:30 PM

Posted in wrong thread. lolz

Craig66 08-29-2014 01:12 AM


Originally Posted by Joe Perez (Post 1161896)
I agree completely.

In this case, I am speaking from direct personal experience. My current relationship has led me to a considerable broadening of my circle of acquaintances, including a number of "undesirables" who are either current or former substance abusers. None are physically disabled, though many are chronically unemployed or underemployed. I have attended small social gatherings with certain of the above, and I have made a number of observations:

1: Smartphone ownership among this group is nearly 100%, with a strong preference shown for the later-model iPhones.

2: The majority smoke cigarettes to the tune of 1-2 packs per day at around $14 a pack, the average price across the state of New York. (source) In case $14 doesn't seem like a lot, that's $420-$840 per month on cigarettes alone. The mortgage on my last house was less than $840 / month.

3: Most "couples" among this group are unmarried, more than half of the unmarried women have children, and among those with more than one child, there is a strong bias towards the children having multiple fathers.

4: Most males in this group own two or more high-end videogaming systems of either the current generation or one generation previous. Additionally, males and families with adult males seem to subscribe to premium cable TV plans which heavily feature a large amount of sports programming, costing on average around $150-200 per month.

5: A very strong preference is exhibited for consuming takeout / fast food / delivery food, as opposed to cooking in the home. Many individuals and couples in this group, including those with small children at home, literally never cook their own food at all despite residing in an apartment with a functional kitchen.

and, most relevant:

6: I have, on several occasions, overheard one food-stamp* recipient brag to another food-stamp recipient the sort of nonessential products which they have been able to get away with buying. Examples here including Monster brand energy drink, various candy products, and "high end" cuts of meat and seafood.
* = I acknowledge that there is more than one class of need-based supplemental nutritional assistance available, each with different rules, and I don't know enough about them to discriminate between them.

In the same way that it rubs you as offensive to see uninformed people paint an overly-broad negative image of sloth and abuse in the social-welfare programs, I am likewise annoyed by those who use the same brush to attack individuals making well-informed and specific criticisms of same, based on lofty but unfounded idealistic visions of the world.


With regard to the observation above, with one exception, 100% these people are either white or Hispanic like myself. Thus, this observation is not at all racist. In fact, I find it somewhat telling that you immediately equated race with poverty.

Idealistic amuses me.

When I went to college the world looked a way.
In a later time even the dopers appeared very different.
It was like a whole different world.
Hell, I lived high for a couple times - about six month periods getting food stamps.

At the one time in my life it seemed the low lifer social parasites was few when I was (I called myself a refugee) on the West side the whole world was the desperate and many parents who ....
Well, I don't know what i would have done with them were I Emperor. Maybe give a study for salvageable children. - take away the parasites meal tickets and see what they do then.
Lot of despicable wretches that I can see how the righteous folks would consider them to be undeserving because they judge them unable to do better yet condemn them for not doing so at the same time.
I have wondered what would come after taking away from them what they don't deserve. I suppose they are all dealing drugs to afford all the expensive shit.
I don't think there is a closed system that is all welfare cheats dealing drugs to one another. Must be someone selling shit to folks with money.
Lot of addicts steal to support their habits. They steal from folks in general and the steal from each other. I don't think that really supports that economy though.
================

Deleted some stuff. Getting into too much detail. Wish I were articulate such to put it in a book.
================
Anyway - I have seen a lot of bitching and solutions that seem as much as the folks who want to solve the ME by nuking the whole area to radioactive glass.
Folks assume that there is solutions to things and that stuff just gotta be done and there needs be blame that it does not get done.
Take away the food stamps and I suppose the stores in that part of town would not make enough income to stay in business.
The powers that be could crack down on crime but would need cheaper way to keep the prisoners since I gather it costs more to keep a convict housed than to give the welfare.

Where did them folks get the money for them expensive phones? I got free phone that is good for talking and text. I rarely use either. I'd think that it'd be expensive to use the features of them expensive phones that I suppose doe internet and games and lotta stuff I have not paid much attention.

Oh well, enough rambling. I can understand the complaint and the begrudging.
Elect me Emperor and I'd give them folks free drugs and phones and rent in something where the toilet flushes and all on condition they get a simple medical procedure so they don't need make a batch of meal tickets that becomes the next generation of them.

Craig66 08-29-2014 01:14 AM


Originally Posted by Joe Perez (Post 1162054)

AAAAAAGGGGHHH - My eyes!!!!

I hate cute

Craig66 08-29-2014 01:19 AM


Originally Posted by Braineack (Post 1161974)
isolated theme: In CA, it is legal to kill/manslaughter so long as you're doing it while being completely negligent for purposes of your employment

Deputy who killed former Napster COO after drifting into the bike lane while distracted by his laptop will NOT face charges because he was answering a work-related email | Mail Online

Then the law needs be modified that they turn on their fucking lights and siren to at least give citizens at least some chance to dodge out of their way.

Braineack 08-29-2014 11:32 AM

isolated theme: cop doesnt murder unarmed loitering smartphone wielding minority teens


Joe Perez 08-29-2014 02:11 PM

4 Attachment(s)
Isolated theme: police officer lures a woman on Craigslist for a "romantic encounter," shoots her, burns her corpse in the woods, and flees to Mexico. (Note correct use of word "isolated" to describe a specific crime perpetuated by a lone individual which is not in any way reflective of an endemic pattern of injustice, nor reflective on the police establishment as a whole.)

Police officer accused of killing, burning New York woman on first date
Posted 11:55 AM, August 29, 2014, by CNN

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1409335886
Tahreem Zeus Rana, a police officer in Atlanta, is accused of killing a 26-year-old woman he met on Craigslist then burning her body to get rid of the evidence. (Photo: CBS46)


HAPEVILLE, Ga. (WGCL) – A 26-year-old woman recently moved from New York to Atlanta was shot to death and then her body was burned in a secluded area, allegedly during her first “date” with a police officer whom she met online.

The Hapeville Police Department issued arrest warrants for Tahreem Zeus Rana on the charges of murder, arson and kidnapping. He was arrested about 9 a.m. Thursday at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport while he was trying to get on a flight to Mexico.

On Aug. 22, a Hapeville city employee found the body of a woman on fire at the end of Elm Street.

Police said the woman, Vernicia Woodard, 26, was shot multiple times and set on fire.

“First he took her to a secluded area to do the crime and then after killing her, he used some kind of fuel to light the body on fire in order to cover up any type of evidence that may be there,” said Detective Stephen Cushing.

Hapeville police said Rana and Woodard met on Craigslist for a “romantic exchange” and the night she was killed was the first time they had met in person.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1409335886
Veronica Woodward, 26, was killed allegedly by a police officer in Georgia. (Photo: CBS46)

Rana was questioned Wednesday by police. Later in the day evidence at the scene and Internet correspondence led them to consider him a suspect, but police couldn’t find him.

Rana is currently employed by the City of Atlanta Police Department as a police officer. He was supposed to go to work Wednesday night but never showed up.

Police put Rana on the no-fly list, let him get through security to ensure he was not armed, then moved in to arrest him.

“We are shocked and saddened by these developments. The officer has been relieved from duty, and is in a non-enforcement status. Chief Turner will schedule an emergency hearing immediately today to determine the next course of action. We must allow the justice system to run its course. But these clearly are very disturbing allegations that are not in line with the expectations we have for our officers, and will be immediately dealt with,” said APD Public Affairs Director Carlos Campos.

Rana grew up in Hapeville. Officers there said they knew his family.

“It’s very saddening to many of the people here,” said Cushing. “Officers actually remember him walking to school here as a young boy saying when I grow up I want to be a police officer. It’s very disheartening to see somebody you grew up with, seeing a young boy change his life and go this route.”

Woodard had just moved to Atlanta from New York. She does have some family in the area.

Police have not said what might have led to her death.

Rana is now in the Fulton County Jail and will appear in court Friday morning.


Police officer accused of killing, burning New York woman on first date | New York's PIX11 / WPIX-TV

mgeoffriau 08-29-2014 02:24 PM

1 Attachment(s)

Originally Posted by Joe Perez (Post 1162356)
(Note correct use of word "isolated" to describe a specific crime perpetuated by a lone individual which is not in any way reflective of an endemic pattern of injustice, nor reflective on the police establishment as a whole.)

You hope.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1409336651

Braineack 08-29-2014 03:15 PM

1 Attachment(s)
https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1409339757

Braineack 09-02-2014 08:07 AM

1 Attachment(s)
https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1409659664

Braineack 09-02-2014 08:11 AM

irony: Man Who Painted Maserati To Resemble 'Transformers' Robot Accused Of Impersonating Cop


he lawyer for a Massachusetts man facing charges of impersonating a police officer for driving around a Maserati painted to resemble a police cruiser calls the case against his client "silly."

Attorney Russell Matson tells The Patriot Ledger (Braintree lawyer calls impersonation charge against client 'silly' - News - The Patriot Ledger, Quincy, MA - Quincy, MA ) his client "never pretended to be a cop," and even told police in advance he was going to decorate his car to look like the character Barricade from a "Transformers" movie.

Matson did not disclose his client's name. The luxury Italian vehicle's body was painted black and white with a police-style shield on the doors, and police-related decals. The door shield was accompanied by the phrase "Decepticons punish and enslave," from the movie.

The driver was pulled over on Aug. 9. He was not arrested but summoned to court on Sept. 4.
still no charges on police being arrested for impersonating military.

Braineack 09-02-2014 08:13 AM

police caught using emergency lights to go get breakfast

[ll]206_1409526386[/ll]

Joe Perez 09-02-2014 09:08 AM


Originally Posted by mgeoffriau (Post 1162359)

Originally Posted by Joe Perez (Post 1162356)
(Note correct use of word "isolated" to describe a specific crime perpetuated by a lone individual which is not in any way reflective of an endemic pattern of injustice, nor reflective on the police establishment as a whole.)

You hope.


So, it's your assertion that luring sluts out into the woods for a quickie, shooting them, and torching their corpses is something that only law enforcement officers can do? Or is it that LEOs have clearly demonstrated a propensity to lure sluts out into the woods for a quickie, shoot them, and torch their corpses at a significantly higher rate than the general public?

mgeoffriau 09-02-2014 12:04 PM


Originally Posted by Joe Perez (Post 1163072)
So, it's your assertion that luring sluts out into the woods for a quickie, shooting them, and torching their corpses is something that only law enforcement officers can do? Or is it that LEOs have clearly demonstrated a propensity to lure sluts out into the woods for a quickie, shoot them, and torch their corpses at a significantly higher rate than the general public?

I'm not sure how the first line of your response could be arrived at based on the preceding comments. Regarding the second question, I asserted no such thing. I only cautioned that "you hope" it's merely an isolated incident.

Given the police's penchant for nominal in-house investigations and administrative cover-ups, I think it's safer to to assume that police might be committing all kinds of heinous crimes on a widespread basis. You can't be too vigilant! As you yourself have commented, it's better to assume that all police are unreasonable, angry, untrained grizzly bears that would just as soon rape us to death, eat our flesh, and sew our skins into their clothing (and if we're very, very lucky, they'll do it in that order) than to see them as guardians of peace and order and protectors of the innocent.





Or, you know, maybe it was a joke.

Braineack 09-02-2014 12:56 PM

speaking of rape and in-house support:

Cop Forced 8 Women to Have Sex With Him Under Threat of Arrest - Hit & Run : Reason.com


An Oklahoma City cop was arrested for forcing eight different women to have sex with him. The officer, 27-year-old Daniel Holtzclaw, allegedly told his victims that he would arrest them if they did not engage in various sexual acts with him.

...

The Oklahoma City Fraternal Order of Police is still supporting Holtzclaw pending the results of an investigation. The organization released a statement explaining that, "Officers often find themselves unfairly targeted by all types of allegations."

Holtzclaw's family and friends have set up a Facebook page, "Justice for Daniel Holtzclaw." Supporters criticized his extremely high bail amount of $5 million.

viperormiata 09-03-2014 02:34 AM

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Justi...90?sk=timeline

Braineack 09-03-2014 01:56 PM

do you have a warrant?


Braineack 09-03-2014 01:57 PM

For Joe P:

war against chickens.

Minnesota police chief decapitates boy's pet chicken; complaint filed - TwinCities.com


An Atwater woman has filed a formal complaint against the Atwater police chief for trespassing on her property and killing her young son's pet chicken -- leaving the hen's decapitated head just feet from the backyard chicken coop.

Ashley Turnbull said she knows she violated the city's ordinance that prohibits fowl and acknowledges she was told Aug. 7 by police to remove the three chickens and two ducks.

But she said Police Chief Trevor Berger went too far when he came onto her property about a week later, when nobody was home, and clubbed, killed and decapitated a small, red hen with a shovel.

"The chicken was like a puppy dog to my son," said Turnbull. "You wouldn't do that to a puppy."

Berger said he was simply enforcing the city ordinance that has been on the books since 1960 and was responding to a "frustrated' neighbor's repeated complaints, including a report on Aug. 16 that one of Turnbull's chickens was running loose in the residential area near the elementary school.

Braineack 09-03-2014 01:59 PM

war against sidewalk users:

Mom Arrested for Blocking Sidewalk While Waiting for Family to Use Bathroom - Midtown - DNAinfo.com New York


mother and former top government lawyer waiting for her husband and kids to use the bathroom at a Times Square restaurant was arrested for blocking the sidewalk, in what she calls an attempt by the NYPD to target her for being Muslim, according to a pending lawsuit.

Chaumtoli Huq, 42, a human rights lawyer and former general counsel for Public Advocate Letitia James, said she had just left a pro-Palestinian rally in Times Square on July 19 with her husband and two young children when they stopped to use the bathroom at Ruby Tuesday at 41st Street and Seventh Avenue.

Huq said she was standing just inches from the front of the restaurant waiting for her husband, Marvin Cabrera, and her 10-year-old son and 6-year-old daughter when Officer Ryan Lathrop and another officer approached her and demanded she clear the sidewalk.

"I'm not in anybody's way. Why do I have to move? What's the problem?" she told police, according to the criminal complaint.

Huq said there was plenty of room for pedestrians to walk between her and the protesters, who were penned in along Seventh Avenue.

She said the officers pinned her against the wall, prompting her to say, “I can’t move, I can’t move.”

But Lathrop claimed in a criminal complaint that Huq refused to move when directed to do so. She was arrested.

“At that point I didn’t know what was happening. I was just thinking, ‘What’s going on?’ and all of a sudden the officer flips me [around]…he [turns] my body and presses me against the wall of the restaurant,” Huq said. “He shoved my left arm all the way and kept pushing it and handcuffed me. At that point I just like instinctively yelled, ‘Help!’ because I was alone. I screamed, ‘Help!’"

...

She was held for more than nine hours in lockup before being arraigned in Manhattan Criminal Court on charges of obstructing governmental administration, resisting arrest and disorderly conduct, court records show.

She said she agreed to have the case adjourned and not get arrested again within the next six months in exchange for a dismissal.

Braineack 09-03-2014 02:07 PM

Swat team to the recuse! Can't have grass too tall, that violates a law or something...

PA Heroes "Bust" Woman Over Too-Tall Lawn - Eric Peters Autos


Police officers barged into a woman’s home because they wanted to arrest the owner because of the length of the front lawn. A tenant answered the door and recorded the rude, obscenity-spewing cops making demands and entering her home, despite the fact that she wasn’t even the person listed on the warrant.

The incident occurred on May 29, 2013. Robyn Ruckman discovered that no less than five police officers were waiting outside. Two were from the Turtle Creek Police Department, two were from East Pittsburgh Police, and one was from the Allegheny County Housing Authority.

As Ms. Ruckman answered the door, police treated her rudely and started making demands. She told them her name but that wasn’t good enough. They wanted her to produce ID.

“You know, I don’t even see a nametag,” Ruckman told the lead officer.

“I don’t give a sh*t what you see. Go get your ID,” the officer growled. “You see that?! It says POLICE.”

After asking them to stay outside, officers barged into her home.

“No, I can’t wait here, because I think you’re trying to avoid us,” one of the officers said.

Police were performing a 12-hour roundup of the town’s code violators, such as those accused of having uncut grass.

Ms. Ruckman got off easy after she proved her identity; she was just a tenant. The team of officers had been sent after her landlord, Roben Edwards, who had fallen on hard times as she fell ill and struggled with ovarian cancer.

East Pittsburgh Police Chief Lori Payne defended the officers, saying that entering the home is necessary because the woman might have “come back with a shotgun.”

* * * * *

FOLLOW-UP: No officers were fired or disciplined following the incident.

Mayor Adam Forgie approved of the officer’s actions and said they behaved appropriately.

“I think my men did exactly what they were trained to do,” he said. “They were looking out for their own safety and their partners’ safety.”

an arrest warrant :ne: a search/seizure warrant

Joe Perez 09-03-2014 03:13 PM


Originally Posted by Braineack (Post 1163569)

Just a very quick case brief:
1: Complainant Ashley Turnbull violates city ordinance by keeping livestock (one chicken, two ducks) on residential property within city limits.

2: Complainant acknowledges said ordinance, and willful, deliberate violation of same.

3: Police warn complainant that said livestock must be removed, complainant acknowledges warning.

4: Complainant, on at least one occasion, fails to maintain control of said livestock, allowing it to roam freely throughout neighborhood and onto grounds of elementary school adjacent to property.

5: Police receive multiple complaints pertaining to said livestock.

6: After complainant refuses to comply with law, Police act in accordance with law and slaughter aforementioned livestock.

I fail to see how any malfeasance has been perpetrated here, except by the woman who kept poultry on her property in knowing violation of the law and then whined about it when this had consequences for her.

Braineack 09-03-2014 04:58 PM

no one said she wasn't in violation.

the question is: does that make it okay for police to kill animals instead of removing them from the location and giving them to animal control and/or a shelter that can legally house them?

I'm sure everyone breaks at least 20 laws daily. What if it had something to do with your children, and instead of them just fining you or taking you to court until you obliged, they just kill them instead?

What if accused shoplifters had their arms cut off by police? What if people who violate CARB laws *coughjoecough* have their vehicles repossessed without trial and crushed by police?

Everyone is presumed innocent. If she's found in violation, she has every right to take it to court first. The killing of livestock serves no purpose or justice. I have no problem with them being taken from the grounds if that's a violation, but they should go to animal control, not to animal heaven. It's not the police officer's decision to make.

the reaccuring theme here is that you believe that criminals deserve unfair treatment from others. that they dont have the same rights as you--not the same protections of property, speech, due process, anything.

Craig66 09-03-2014 09:26 PM


Originally Posted by Braineack (Post 1163638)
I'm sure everyone breaks at least 20 laws daily. justice.

I don't think I break even half dozen on a good day.

Braineack 09-03-2014 09:34 PM

ignorance of the laws you break is no excuse.

Joe Perez 09-04-2014 12:03 PM


Originally Posted by Braineack (Post 1163638)
the question is: does that make it okay for police to kill animals instead of removing them from the location and giving them to animal control and/or a shelter that can legally house them?

If the local ordinance which prohibits the keeping of livestock within city limits prescribes this method of remediation, or no other ordinance prohibits it, then yes, that makes it ok.

If the ordinance specifies that the animals must be removed to a shelter, or another ordinance prohibits the beheading of fowl by police with a shovel, then no, it's not ok, and the police officer in question would be subject to sanction.

Frankly, I can't find a copy of the municipal codes for the city of Atwater, Minnesota online. But it sounds to me like your beef is with the Atwater city council, not the Atwater PD.


Also, a followup article. Apparently, the mother was known to the community to be somewhat of a pest, and the townspeople are actually rallying in support of the police in this one:
Citizens rally to support Minnesota police chief who killed boy's pet chicken

ATWATER, Minn. -- A vocal crowd crammed into the Atwater City Council chambers Wednesday night in support of the small west-central Minnesota town's police chief, who received statewide and even national media attention this week for killing a boy's pet chicken that was running loose in the homeowner's back yard.

Many at the meeting not only expressed strong opposition to allowing chickens in town but also voiced support for Berger and the action he took to "dispatch" the chicken being kept against city ordinance.

Much of the criticism wasn't directed at Berger for decapitating the chicken, but against homeowner Ashley Turnbull, who filed the complaint against the police chief.

"This is nothing more than bullying," screamed one woman, referring to Turnbull's complaint.

Others said Turnbull caused the problem by having chickens in the first place, not removing them when police warned her to do so and for letting the hen escape its pen.

Citizens rally to support Minnesota police chief who killed boy's pet chicken - TwinCities.com

From the same article:

Berger also presented the council with a draft of a proposed ordinance that would allow residents to keep up to five chickens.

The council is expected to discuss the ordinance in October.
See, that's how you actually solve problems, not by bitching about them to strangers on a car forum. Note that it's actually the police chief (Berger) who is trying to solve the problem here, not the mother. :bigtu:






Originally Posted by Braineack (Post 1163638)
What if it had something to do with your children, and instead of them just fining you or taking you to court until you obliged, they just kill them instead?

It seems foolish to equate the value of the life of a chicken with the value of the life of a 5 year old boy, even a very bratty one. (Typical liberal thinking...)

That said, a local ordinance which specifies summary execution for offenses relating to minors in the custody of the accused would be in violation of the due process clause of the US constitution.




Originally Posted by Braineack (Post 1163638)
What if accused shoplifters had their arms cut off by police?

Shoplifting falls under the criminal code, rather than administrative law. As such, presuming that the accused were afforded a trial, I'd have no problem with this punishment. From a legal standpoint, it's little different from any other routine deprivation of liberty.




Originally Posted by Braineack (Post 1163638)
What if people who violate CARB laws *coughjoecough* have their vehicles repossessed without trial and crushed by police?

That already happens. Think before you ask these questions. :rolleyes:






Originally Posted by Braineack (Post 1163638)
Everyone is presumed innocent. If she's found in violation, she has every right to take it to court first.

No, she doesn't.

This shows me that you don't really understand how the legal system in the US works. She has a right to trial if she is accused of a criminal offense which may result in her being deprived of life or liberty. (eg: jail, execution, community service, etc.) You don't have the right to trial when you are accused of non-criminal statutory violations for which the punishment is not a deprivation of liberty. As an example, if you ignore a bunch of parking tickets, then your car may be towed, impounded, and auctioned. No trial required.

That said, it sounds to me like she did in fact have an opportunity to protest the warning given to her by the police a week before the chicken was killed, but she chose to ignore it.





Originally Posted by Braineack (Post 1163638)
the reaccuring theme here is that you believe that criminals deserve unfair treatment from others. that they dont have the same rights as you--not the same protections of property, speech, due process, anything.

You are correct in that criminals do not deserve the same protections of property and speech- that concept is inherent in the foundational idea of a criminal justice system. I'm not sure how that's relevant here, since no criminal conduct is being alleged.

Joe Perez 09-04-2014 12:04 PM


Originally Posted by Braineack (Post 1163773)
ignorance of the laws you break is no excuse.

This is correct.

Craig66 09-04-2014 03:32 PM


Originally Posted by Joe Perez (Post 1163945)
This is correct.

Actually, in criminal law it is.
And I assumed that is the reason that I saw very many laws underwritten with "intent may be presumed."
I can't remember the cases right off but it has been a rare thing that persons got off in court or appeal for sake of there was not ample opportunity for citizens to become aware of new law.

So, in effect it is only almost always correct. ;)

Also, it has pissed me off that the things where intent may be presumed is interpreted by many in the criminal justice system to preclude allowing to try to demonstrate lack of intent. - Folks even much misunderstand a notion about proving a negative ....

========
Comes to think - it was not long ago that I read of a judge threw out a case because the wording of the law/ordinance made it incomprehensible to mere mortals. (I forget his wording but it was on such a level)

Joe Perez 09-05-2014 09:45 AM


Originally Posted by Craig66 (Post 1164065)
So, in effect it is only almost always correct. ;)

This is true, and one reason why a strong and effective judiciary is such a critical element of the US-style model of government, as a check against poor legislative action. There have been numerous cases (Cheek v. US, Barlow v. US, etc) in which the court ruled that in a specific, narrowly defined situation, some element of ignorance of a law, or of the law itself being incomprehensible, was sufficient to form part of a defense.

But these are exceptions to the rule, and are outnumbered by many ordered of magnitude by cases in which ignorance of the law is not upheld as a defensible position.


In Latin, the term is Ignorantia juris non excusat, meaning "ignorance of the law does not excuse."


In plain English, it's US Model Penal Code section 2.02(9) and 2.04(3), to wit:

2.02 General Requirements of Culpability.

(9) Culpability as to Illegality of Conduct. Neither knowledge nor recklessness or negligence as to whether conduct constitutes an offense or as to the existence, meaning or application of the law determining the elements of an offense is an element of such offense, unless the definition of the offense or the Code so provides.

This tells us, in very contorted language, that unless a statute specifically states that you are not in violation of the law if you are unaware of the existence of that particular statute, that knowledge of the law is not an element of an offense under it. (Eg: it affirms that ignorance is not a defense.)

and

2.04 Ignorance or Mistake.

(3) A belief that conduct does not legally constitute an offense is a defense to a prosecution for that offense based upon such conduct when:
(a) the statute or other enactment defining the offense is not known to the actor and has not been published or otherwise reasonably made available prior to the conduct alleged; or

(b) he acts in reasonable reliance upon an official statement of the law, afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous, contained in (i) a statute or other enactment; (ii) a judicial decision, opinion or judgment; (iii) an administrative order or grant of permission; or (iv) an official interpretation of the public officer or body charged by law with responsibility for the interpretation, administration or enforcement of the law defining the offense.


This lays out two specific situations where ignorance of the law IS an acceptable defense. The first (a) is a situation in which the defendant is unaware of the law because it has not been published or otherwise made reasonably available to the general public. And the second (b) is a case in which an individual misunderstood the law because of an official statement which was in error, one example of which would be if one was told (incorrectly) by a police officer that it was permissible to do a certain thing despite that thing being forbidden by law.




Of course, none of this is relevant to Ms. Turnbull's chicken, since she openly admits knowing that she was in violation of the law, and is on record as having ignored a warning from the police to comply with it prior to remediation having occurred.

Still trying to understand how the Police Chief of Atwater, MN acted maliciously or improperly...

z31maniac 09-05-2014 10:38 AM


Originally Posted by Joe Perez (Post 1164265)
And the second (b) is a case in which an individual misunderstood the law because of an official statement which was in error, one example of which would be if one was told (incorrectly) by a police officer that it was permissible to do a certain thing despite that thing being forbidden by law.


Sounds like "detrimental reliance" we used in the insurance world.

Braineack 09-08-2014 08:57 AM

if at first you don't succeed, take turns beating people up.

WATCH: NYPD officers take turns beating Bronx man after search turns up nothing


“I’m like, ‘Miss what you doing? You are hurting my arm,’ ” Hernandez said. “She just was telling me to put my hands behind my back, but ‘I’m like trying to understand what are you are arresting me for. Can you please tell me?’.”

Moments after refusing to comply to an order to put both his hands behind his back, a half-dozen uniformed officers appeared and dog-piled on Hernandez, punching and kicking and dragging him onto the sidewalk.

Cellphone video backs up his account of the assault.

“They was taking turns on me. One kicks me, he steps back. Another one comes to punch me and he steps back,” Hernandez said. “And another one comes and grabs my arm and hits me like 10 times with the baton. Another one comes and pepper sprayed me, they were taking turns like a gang.”

The video shows a subdued Hernandez then being dragged to a waiting patrol car.

Photos show Hernandez covered in bruises and scrapes after the incident.

Hernandez was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, however the Bronx DA declined to prosecute the case.
Good thing the DA brought up charges against the officers, oh wait, no that doesn't happen.

Braineack 09-08-2014 09:00 AM

man arrested for legally recording military exercises in public streets.

[ll]5ad_1410150009[/ll]

Oh sorry, that's not that miltary in tanks and body armor violating your rights, it's just your local police. My bad. Of course this is an isolated incident. Police aren't actually militarized and they certainly don't arrest people for video recording them standing on thier own private property.

Braineack 09-08-2014 09:02 AM

cops hate cameras:


Braineack 09-08-2014 09:08 AM

recurring theme: people dont know how to run


Braineack 09-08-2014 09:11 AM

"whatever the traffic stop was, i'm not here for that"


Braineack 09-08-2014 09:15 AM

note to self: don't let police guide you anywhere, especially not the floor.

Attorney says deputies injured woman, plans to sue| Dayton, OH | www.whio.com


Evans was transported to the Montgomery County Jail, where her attorney said the excessive force incident occurred.

In a video of the incident, Evans can be seen handcuffed and being held by Sgt. Eric Banks. In the incident report, Banks wrote that Evans used her legs to press against the wall and vaulted towards him. The deputy then guided her to the ground to prevent Evans from falling on him, which resulted in Evans hitting her face and torso on the floor, according to the report.

Evans suffered multiple facial fractures and a possible contusion to the inferior left frontal lobe of her brain after being slammed on the floor, Bly said.

The sheriff’s office told Evans her injuries were self-inflicted by either doing a back flip off a bench or falling down a flight of stairs, Bly said, adding that it took nearly three months for Evans to learn she was injured while being booked into the jail.
I'd like to see that drunk girl, in custody, do a backflip off a bench.

Braineack 09-08-2014 09:18 AM

in Argentina, police will jump on your car in an excuse to assault you.



Police Commander Juan Alberto López Torales fakes a car accident, damaging a private citizen's car, falsely accusing them of causing bodily harm, and falsely arresting them. Looks like he learned that trick from watching football soccer.

Braineack 09-08-2014 09:22 AM

this biker is lucky:

[ll]db3_1408250076[/ll]

Braineack 09-08-2014 09:23 AM

police dont have quotas, until they do, and then they gotta do damage control

Florida police chief suspended from ticket-writing scandal - Washington Times


A tiny Florida town located between Jacksonville and Gainesville with a national reputation as a speed trap is under fire for a ticket-writing scandal, after police said they were ordered by their chief to write 12 tickets per 12-hour shift, or face punishment.

Waldo City Council suspended two police supervisors, Cpt. Kenneth Smith and Police Chief Mike Szabo, after learning of the allegations, The Associated Press reported.

Mr. Szabo was the chief accused by police of ordering the traffic ticket quotas. After he was suspended, Mr. Smith was put into his position — but then officers complained he mishandled evidence, AP reported. The City Council then suspended Mr. Smith.

Waldo has long held a reputation as a massive speed trap. In one small portion of the highway that runs through Waldo, the speed limit starts at 65 miles per hour, then drops to 55, then falls to 45, then goes back to 55, then back down to 45, then to 55 again and finally, to 35, AP reported.


dieselmiata 09-08-2014 11:29 AM

25,000 Isolated incidents.

Cops are seizing hundreds of millions of dollars from drivers and bragging about it in chat rooms | The Verge

Braineack 09-08-2014 01:00 PM

it's legal. stop antagonize police and carrying cash.

golftdibrad 09-08-2014 02:11 PM


Originally Posted by Joe Perez (Post 1163944)

This shows me that you don't really understand how the legal system in the US works. She has a right to trial if she is accused of a criminal offense which may result in her being deprived of life or liberty. (eg: jail, execution, community service, etc.) You don't have the right to trial when you are accused of non-criminal statutory violations for which the punishment is not a deprivation of liberty. As an example, if you ignore a bunch of parking tickets, then your car may be towed, impounded, and auctioned. No trial required.


other comments aside, in our modern world, I don't think it would be hard to disagree that depriving people of the tools of their lively hood is a deprivation of liberty and should have a higher standard in the law.

IE you have to face a judge or something before they can take your shit because of things you've been accused of.

Braineack 09-08-2014 02:35 PM


Originally Posted by Joe Perez (Post 1163944)
This shows me that you don't really understand how the legal system in the US works. She has a right to trial if she is accused of a criminal offense which may result in her being deprived of life or liberty. (eg: jail, execution, community service, etc.) You don't have the right to trial when you are accused of non-criminal statutory violations for which the punishment is not a deprivation of liberty.


As an example, if you ignore a bunch of parking tickets, then your car may be towed, impounded, and auctioned. No trial required.
Parking violations ARE ordinance violations and you can still plead your case in court. Same with the majority of all traffic violations; you are giving a summons to court when suspected of being in violation. You can go to court, or bribe the state in dropping your case with a lot of money for your ordinance violation. Only a few moving violations are criminal (i.e., DUI, driving without a license, reckless driving, etc.).

I have a hearing before the General District Court, Traffic Division of Arlington County, Virginia for Arlington Country parking citations #4810133A; I was suspected of parking within a restrcited area. This is not a criminal case. I could have paid $50 to have it all go away, or argue my case in court. I will not be arrested, or deprived life or liberty if I'm found guilty.

As you mistaking going to court with being arrested?


and if you preuse just about any city/town in the entire USA, you'll find a quote similar to this:


What happens if I get arrested for violating a City ordinance?

A police, animal control or fire department officer will issue you a Notice to Appear. This notice will inform you of the charge against you, the amount of the fine, the pay-by-mail date (if allowed) and the court date if you choose not to pay the fine prior to the pay-by-mail date. If the officer marks the Notice to Appear as a must-appear, you do not have the option of paying the minimum fine and you must appear in Court on the date listed on the Notice to Appear.
She should have been arrested/summoned for being in violation of the ordinance.


Although, if we use this as a precedent, a lot of cities have ordinances limit the amount of tenants that can reside in a household. Can we assume that if you're "found" in violation and the city asks residents to move out, that when police show up again and you're still in violation, they are allowed to end the lives of the violators until the restriction is met?

That is the logic we are going with right?


the rest of my post you gotta do a better job figuring out when im being overally dramatic/ironic/stupid

Joe Perez 09-08-2014 02:57 PM


Originally Posted by Braineack (Post 1165180)
As you mistaking going to court with being arrested?

No. Are you mistaking an administrative hearing with a trial?

rleete 09-08-2014 04:49 PM


Originally Posted by Braineack (Post 1165180)
Although, if we use this as a precedent, a lot of cities have ordinances limit the amount of tenants that can reside in a household. Can we assume that if you're "found" in violation and the city asks residents to move out, that when police show up again and you're still in violation, they are allowed to end the lives of the violators until the restriction is met?

Only in a perfect world.

Braineack 09-09-2014 09:00 AM


Originally Posted by Joe Perez (Post 1165187)
No. Are you mistaking an administrative hearing with a trial?

My court date on 10/3 for "violating" an Arlington County city ordinance is in General District Court in front of a regular judge, not an ALJ.

How is it I am going to court over a city violation?

Now if I don't agree with the practices of Arlington County parking attendants for say: not stopping from writing the ticket as I was trying to leave my parking spot at 6pm when it turned into a "taxi only" spot--I may end up in an Administrative Hearing if I file a case against the city.

But this is NOT what I'm talking about.


Originally Posted by rleete (Post 1165233)
Only in a perfect world.

Well. I mean it's the law--you violate city ordinances and the police will show up and make sure you are in compliance without due process and/or right to life/liberty.

And since this is the internet: Kinda like how the SS would enforce the law in Nazi Germany.


and since Joe loves the Constitution, the law, and serif fonts:


nor shall any state deprive any person of...property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
chicken = property
police killing chicken = depravation of property
a warning = no due process
not going to court over it = no due process
administrative hearings = no due process

or

person supossedly violated law without due process = person is a filthy welfare/food stamp collecting criminal with a smartphone that doesn't deserve the equal protections granted in the 14th.

Braineack 09-09-2014 09:06 AM

Federal Appellate Judge Slams Justice Department Over Immigration Checkpoint Detention


The Fifth Circuit US Court of Appeals on Tuesday heard a Justice Department official argue that agents have the right to indefinitely detain "uncooperative" motorists at border roadblocks far from the actual border. US Air Force Major Richard Rynearson was stopped on March 18, 2010 when he came to an immigration checkpoint on Highway 90 in Uvalde, Texas, 67 miles from the border with Mexico. The Justice Department attorney got off to a bad start with the three-judge panel.

"To take the position of plaintiff in this case, this court would have to hold that, as plaintiffs and amicus insist, that they have a right to say nothing," Justice Department attorney Steve Frank said. "To just pull up at a checkpoint stop..."

At this point, Judge Jennifer Elrod interrupted.

"That's not true," Judge Elrod said. "That's just absolutely not true. We would not have to hold anything so broad. We would have to hold if you cooperate you can't be held for thirty minutes in what's supposed to be a quick stop and that everybody should know that if you don't have probable cause you, can't keep holding someone there for lengthy periods of time after you produce your identification."

Immigration roadblocks are supposed to be for the sole purpose of establishing US citizenship at the border, but the courts have expanded the definition of "border" to include anything within 100 miles of the border. Although Rynearson offered a military ID, passport and driver's license, Border Patrol agents were peeved that Rynearson did not fully roll down his window and asked if he was being detained.

"Basically, for a large part of the time the gentleman was not answering questions," the government lawyer said.

Judge Elrod interjected a second time. She had seen exactly what happened during the stop on a video that Rynearson recorded and uploaded to YouTube (view video).

"That's not true, counsel," Judge Elrod said. "He never once did not answer a question posed to him, did he counsel? There is not a single incident where he was asked a question and did not respond, is there, sir? ...I don't understand what he did that contributed to the lengthy time that they just sat there."

A large part of the delay came while Border Patrol agents called to complain to the decorated combat veteran's commanding officer.

"What is the purpose of going to call the commanding officer at the military base?" Judge Elrod asked. "What does that have to do at all with citizenship?"

The district court threw out the case, denying a discovery request that would have taken depositions to find out what was said on the phone calls. Rynearson is asking the three-judge panel to send the case back to the district court so a jury can decide whether the Border Patrol agents should pay for violating Rynearson's Fourth Amendment rights.

"At one point the officer tells Mr. Rynearson that they don't need probable cause to hold him," Judge Elrod said. "Is that legally correct? ...Could you hold someone overnight at the border stop?"

The Justice lawyer argued that because there was no "clearly established precedent" saying a stop longer than five minutes was unconstitutional that the officers could not be held personally liable for their conduct.

"There's no law here," Frank said. "There's no law that says how long you can detain someone, what kind of questions you can ask."

What I dont understand is why they didn't just kill this guy for not following directions.

Braineack 09-10-2014 10:56 AM

another isloated incodent of local police overratcing to a sucidal man, and then kililng him to save him from himself.

Man Threatens Suicide With Knife, Police Respond With SWAT Team, Snipers and MRAP | The Free Thought Project


n the small town of Muhlenberg, PA, a call to the local police about a man threatening suicide with a kitchen knife was met with by a highly militarized police response.

...

Residents of the home had already vacated the property when police arrived. According to police, the suicidal man was a frequent houseguest of the homeowners.

The police entered and cornered the man into a bedroom. The man then barricaded himself in the room. It was at this point that the Berks County Emergency Response Team was called in to take over.

Rather than de-escalate the situation using mental health professionals, the police doubled down on their high-pressure tactics and militarized response.

A man threatening to take his own life with a knife was reason enough to put into action a SWAT response, a sniper in a ghillie suit and an MRAP armored personnel carrier.

The response was more akin to that of a battlefield in Afghanistan then a mental health crisis in small town America. Sadly, this type of police response is becoming more and more frequent as the police state grows.

Later the police confirmed that the man had a history of mental illness.

Luckily, the man agreed to come out of the house prior to being killed by officers, such as what happened to Michael Blair in a very similar incident in Fort Bend, Texas earlier this year.

Blair was not so fortunate, as he was shot and killed by the officers responding to the call of him threatening suicide with a knife.


watch how many times this cop shoots this dude:

[ll]c74_1399580183[/ll]

good thing he asked for a taser about 38 times...

Braineack 09-10-2014 10:59 AM

cops hate cameras:


Braineack 09-10-2014 11:22 AM

if you want me to leave your private property you can ask me to leave.

leave!

nah.


Joe Perez 09-10-2014 11:28 AM


Originally Posted by Braineack (Post 1165404)
and since Joe loves the Constitution, the law, and serif fonts:

Palatino Linotype, in particular. Not just because it's a beautiful font, (and even more so when rendered in true italic type), but because the Linotype Company is one of the earliest of the great font foundries, back when the term "foundry" in this context literally referred to the pouring of molten metal into forms to create metal type. Linotype's typesetting machines were the backbone of the American journalism industry for nearly a hundred years, from the late 1800s until the advent of computer-assisted lithography. It is therefore especially fitting when discussing matters relevant to journalism itself.






But you're quite right in the deprivation of property without due process is a large and fascinating subject, which has been the focus of many cases dating back nearly to the foundation of the present-day US appellate court system, and one which is fodder for many a law-school debate. The issue remains essentially unsettled, as new and interesting arguments continue to be formulated on each side.

For instance, is taxation a deprivation of property? Do you expect a day in court each and every time you are required to pay income tax? What about property tax? Or registration fees on your car?

Broadly speaking, it is a commonly-held majority opinion that due process is required only when a taking is punitive in nature, such as would be the case when a person is assessed a fine. It is often (but not universally) not required when the property being taken is held illegally, and the taking is remedial in nature.



For instance, if you steal my car, and the police discover this, you have no right to contest the police taking it from you and giving it back to me. You could context the question of fact and claim that the car wasn't stolen in the first place, but having admitted that the car is stolen, you have no right to contest the question of law that the police may legally take it from you.

The same fundamental issue exists in the matter of Ms. Turnbull's chicken. Having admitted that she knowingly and willfully kept the chicken illegally, and ignored warnings by the police to rectify this situation, she has already forfeited any right to due process in the matter of the disposition of the chicken.

Braineack 09-10-2014 11:33 AM


Originally Posted by Joe Perez (Post 1165884)
The same fundamental issue exists in the matter of Ms. Turnbull's chicken. Having admitted that she knowingly and willfully kept the chicken illegally, and ignored warnings by the police to rectify this situation, she has already forfeited any right to due process in the matter of the disposition of the chicken.


why does that matter?

lets say I was criminally trespassing but an officer gives me a warning to leave and then i dont.

will I then be thrown in prision indefinitely, without due process, at the will of the police officer because I knowingly and willfully ignored the law?

So this is how law works in the US: first a warning, then if you continue to disobey you lose your rights to due process? I didnt notice that caveat anywhere...


For instance, if you steal my car, and the police discover this, you have no right to contest the police taking it from you and giving it back to me. You could context the question of fact and claim that the car wasn't stolen in the first place, but having admitted that the car is stolen, you have no right to contest the question of law that the police may legally take it from you.
Since I was in possession of a stolen car, willingly and knowingly, the police have every discretion to destroy to the property because I wasn't supposed to own a stolen car. Sucks for you.


I have no problem with police removing her chicken and charging her with violation of the livestock ordinance, and then going to court over it to receive her judgement. I have every problem with police issuing a warning, then when checking back, destroying her private property until they determine on a whim she in compliance, without any due process.

I violated two fairfax county ordinances with my miata recently. I was given two fines with the option to go to court to contest; they didn't just tow it or destory it on the spot...weird. I guess they do things different in America.

Joe Perez 09-10-2014 11:47 AM


Originally Posted by Braineack (Post 1165888)
why does that matter?

lets say I was criminally trespassing but an officer gives me a warning to leave and then i dont.

will I then be thrown in prision indefinitely, without due process, at the will of the police officer because I knowingly and willfully ignored the law?

So this is how law works in the US: first a warning, then if you continue to disobey you lose your rights to due process? I didnt notice that caveat anywhere...

And that's why it's an interesting and commonly-debated subject, rather than a simple open-and-shut case.

One of the very first things that they teach you in law school is that there's typically no single correct answer. I'm not kidding, I recall clearly that being taught to us on the first day of orientation. The law, as a profession, exists because two parties disagree not merely to questions of fact, but more importantly to questions of law.

If you look at the legal system (which, for this purpose, I consider to include the police) through a binary lens as though everything can be either "right" or "wrong," then you are setting yourself up for disappointment and frustration.





Originally Posted by Braineack (Post 1165888)
Since I was in possession of a stolen car, willingly and knowingly, the police have every discretion to destroy to the property because I wasn't supposed to own a stolen car.

I'm going to have to ask you to cite a case on that one, since I'm pretty sure that it's not correct in any US jurisdiction.




Also, I love the phrase "Ms. Turnbull's chicken." It reminds me of the sort of thing you'd read in a Supreme Court decision from the early 1800s which winds up being cited over and over again in subsequent lower-court cases for centuries to come.

Braineack 09-10-2014 12:41 PM


Originally Posted by Joe Perez (Post 1165893)
I'm going to have to ask you to cite a case on that one, since I'm pretty sure that it's not correct in any US jurisdiction.

I used "Ms. Turnbull's chicken" as precedent.

Joe Perez 09-10-2014 01:20 PM

1 Attachment(s)

Originally Posted by Braineack (Post 1165912)
I used "Ms. Turnbull's chicken" as precedent.

There are two reasons why that doesn't make any sense.

A: Precedent is created when a court makes a ruling in a case. This can be a of first instance reaching a decision in a trial, or (more significantly, and much more frequently cited) when an appellate court* rules on the finding of a lower court. In this case, Ms. Turnbull is not being charged with a criminal act, has not been arrested, and will not be tried. If she elects to file suit against the City of Atwater, the Police Chief of Atwater, or another interested party, and the matter is adjudicated, the it will be able to serve as precedent.

II: Even if Turnbull v. Atwater was a case that could be cited, it would not be relevant, since it has to do with a law enforcement officer acting to enforce an ordinance against an individual who refuses to comply with it, and not an act of theft perpetuated by one private citizen against another. In Turnbull, no property has been stolen.



I do appreciate the use of "Ms. Turnbull's chicken", however you have failed civil procedure. Try again? Y/N

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1410369609


* = An appellate court is where you go when you disagree with the verdict of a lower court, usually because you feel that some error has been made in the proceedings. Appellate courts do not admit new evidence or hear new testimony, they merely examine the evidence presented at the original court, the ruling of the court, the procedures followed, etc., to determine whether the trial was fair and the court acted properly.

The US Supreme Court is probably the best-known appellate court, but there are other levels of appellate courts beneath it, such as the US Circuit Courts (which hear appeals in Federal district trials), the State Supreme Courts, and the State District Courts of Appeal.

Braineack 09-11-2014 02:49 PM

1 Attachment(s)
in the cup, out of the cup; it's all semantics.

true story: I used the phrase "Dont jesus fuck me"

then I found this article: Teen Could Get Two Years for Facebook Photos with Jesus Statue « KRON4 – San Francisco Bay Area News


A Pennsylvania teenager is facing criminal charges after posting pictures to Facebook of him simulating a sex act with a statue of Jesus.

The young man posted that he took the pictures in late July at the statue of a kneeling Jesus in front of the “Love in the Name of Christ” Christian organization in his hometown of Everett.

The criminal charge, which will be heard in family court, consists of “Desecration of a Venerated Object.”

Pennsylvania law defines desecration as “Defacing, damaging, polluting or otherwise, physically mistreating in a way that the actor knows will outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or discover the action.”

The teen, whose name has not been released, could face up to two years in a juvenile jail if convicted.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1410461378

Joe Perez 09-11-2014 03:16 PM

2 Attachment(s)
Now that's downright disturbing.

"Congrefs shall make no law..."




EDIT:

I mean, seriously, I expect shit like this to happen in countries ruled by Islamic law, ie: "somewhere else." We don't normally think about how Protestant Christian law is, in many ways, just as insidious.

Facebook user jailed a year for offensive Hari Raya greeting

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1410467446
Facebook user Chow Mun Fai has been sentenced to a year’s jail for using his ‘Chow Jack’ Facebook
account on June 12 to post a Hari Raya Aidilfitri greeting that included the words ‘devil’ and ‘bak kut teh’,
a dish containing pork that is forbidden to Muslims. ― Picture by Choo Choy May


KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 9 ― A 27-year-old Facebook user was sentenced to one year's jail after he pleaded guilty to making remarks disparaging Islam and the Prophet Muhammad.

Chow Mun Fai was earlier charged with using his “Chow Jack” Facebook account on June 12 to post a Hari Raya Aidilfitri greeting that included the words “devil” and “bak kut teh”, a dish containing pork that is forbidden to Muslims.

The charge was proffered under Section 233 (1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, for posting an offensive comment with intention to hurt the feelings of others.

After hearing arguments from both sides, Sessions Court judge Azman Mustapha ordered Chow to be jailed for one year ― the maximum imprisonment term allowed under Section 233 (3) of the same law.

The penalty under Section 233 (3) is a fine of up to RM50,000 or one year jail or both.

According to Azman, the sentence should serve as both a lesson for Chow and also a reminder to the public to not hide behind the Internet to write comments that could cause anger and disrupt harmony.

Chow's lawyer Ahmad Ridza Mohd Noh had earlier asked for a lighter sentence, pointing out that his client was providing for his parents, both aged 60, with his RM2,000 monthly wage as a site supervisor.

Ahmad Ridza also said that his client suffered from severe gastric problems and tuberculosis.

Chow also regretted his error and his act would “haunt” him for life, the lawyer said.

DPP Suhaimi Ibrahim had argued that “public policy demands a severe sentence to be imposed” in Chow's case.

Suhaimi cited the Federal Constitution’s Article 3, which states that Islam is the religion of the federation while other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony.

“The accused’s action in disputing or raising sensitive issues about Islam would surely invite response from others,” he said, adding that this would destroy the foundation of a peaceful and respectful society based on Article 3.

Suhaimi also said there is a limit to the constitutional right to freedom of expression, and that the court must give a clear message to all social media users that they must be responsible for the consequences of their remarks.

Earlier today, Chow pleaded not guilty to the principal charge under Section 4(1)(c) of the Sedition Act, which prescribes a maximum penalty of RM5,000 fine or three years’ jail or both.

Since Chow pleaded guilty to the alternative charge under the CMA, the sedition charge against him no longer applies.

The charges against him were brought following a June 12 police report by Mohamed Fairuz Mohamed Ariff, a supervisor at the Kuala Lumpur Performing Arts Centre (KLPAC) — where Chow was said to have posted the offensive remark.


https://sg.news.yahoo.com/facebook-u...064200370.html

Craig66 09-11-2014 05:34 PM


Originally Posted by Braineack (Post 1166378)
in the cup, out of the cup; it's all semantics.

true story: I used the phrase "Dont jesus fuck me"

then I found this article: Teen Could Get Two Years for Facebook Photos with Jesus Statue « KRON4 – San Francisco Bay Area News

Should he not be burned at the stake or some traditional thing like that?

Or it could be taken as a symbol or object lesson of such as the proscription in them Commandments against graven image.
In my own view the thing makes their god small as something that can be desecrated.
My thing is such that desecrators could not touch it.
That they will punish someone demonstrates that they give some power to the image. If he had chipped or otherwise damaged the object then he ought be liable for damaging the property.
I suppose he is an asshole and needs mommie to spank but he ought to be able to sue for being arrested for such a stupid law.

Braineack 09-13-2014 10:04 AM

1st trumps stupid laws.

I agree with joe. shock.

Braineack 09-15-2014 07:58 AM

for Joe P



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:38 AM.


© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands