That’s a felony?
Re: That’s a felony?
And by the way, as I am two percent black I can I can use the term Mother Fucker, but if you use it you are a racist. Now I wasted too much time here I got work to do.
I expected to be placed in an air force combat position such as security police, forward air control, pararescue or E.O.D. I would have liked dog handler. I had heard about the dog Nemo and was highly impressed. “SFB” is sad I didn’t end up in E.O.D.
Re: That’s a felony?
Did any of those bleating about freedom of speech bother to read any of the law or commentary cited previously? Didn't think so.
His words did not get him charged with assault and disorderly conduct. He was charged with assault because his actions demonstrated that he "knowingly engage[d] in conduct which place[d] another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery" (720 ILCS 5/12-1(a)) You claim to have watched the video, watch how often he is right up in her face while screaming at her, and how many times he begins to leave and then charges right at her with no provocation. No, he did not put his hands on her, which is why he was not also charged with battery. He was charged with disorderly conduct because he "act[ed] in such unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace" (720 ILCS 5/26-1)
I already cited the hate crimes statute and nowhere does it allow people to be prosecuted because they hold certain opinions or have expressed those opinions. This man's words are being used against him as evidence that the crimes he committed that day were motivated by the race/ethnic origin of the victim. Just like his words could be used against him if they were evidence of any other crime. Isn't that one of the reasons that Miranda warnings came to be given, because it had always been allowable to use a person's words as evidence against them? Freedom of speech has never been a shield against that, so why invoke it at all in this case?
As far as turning a 30-day assault into "years" in prison, this is a Class 4 (i.e. least serious) felony, which carries a sentence of 1 to 3 years, up to 30 months of which can be probation. No one here was injured, there was no property damage, unless he is a repeat offender he will get probation and the right wing will have to find another martyr to champion.
His words did not get him charged with assault and disorderly conduct. He was charged with assault because his actions demonstrated that he "knowingly engage[d] in conduct which place[d] another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery" (720 ILCS 5/12-1(a)) You claim to have watched the video, watch how often he is right up in her face while screaming at her, and how many times he begins to leave and then charges right at her with no provocation. No, he did not put his hands on her, which is why he was not also charged with battery. He was charged with disorderly conduct because he "act[ed] in such unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace" (720 ILCS 5/26-1)
I already cited the hate crimes statute and nowhere does it allow people to be prosecuted because they hold certain opinions or have expressed those opinions. This man's words are being used against him as evidence that the crimes he committed that day were motivated by the race/ethnic origin of the victim. Just like his words could be used against him if they were evidence of any other crime. Isn't that one of the reasons that Miranda warnings came to be given, because it had always been allowable to use a person's words as evidence against them? Freedom of speech has never been a shield against that, so why invoke it at all in this case?
As far as turning a 30-day assault into "years" in prison, this is a Class 4 (i.e. least serious) felony, which carries a sentence of 1 to 3 years, up to 30 months of which can be probation. No one here was injured, there was no property damage, unless he is a repeat offender he will get probation and the right wing will have to find another martyr to champion.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."
-- Author unknown
-- Author unknown
Re: That’s a felony?
Few of you have apparently read and/or retained the multitudes of posts in this forum where the lawyers have explained what "freedom of speech" actually means as a matter of law, and not as a soundbite.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
Re: That’s a felony?
And hate crime statues aside, the reason we have assault laws is precisely to prevent this sort of behavior, which could easily escalate into a far more serious situation if the law/police did not protect the victim (think of how easily it could rise to the level of a battery or worse. If he didn't say anything about Puerto Rico at all, he would still be charged with assault. Words alone are not usually sufficient, but coupling them with aggressive behavior that would make her reasonably apprehensive of being physically attacked. If he just stood away at a distance and yelled Purto Ricans were not American citizens (bullshit, but there is generally no law one has to be truthful), I doubt there would have been any arrests (she might have yelled something back as she walked away, but that would be that), but this aggressive behavior including charging into her personal space Is not protected, regardless of why he did it.
I once had a client who get aggressive with his landlord in the same way (again, not hat crime component) and was charged similarly. We were able to have it knocked down to a municipal offense (disorderly person), but he still had to pay a big fine (not to paying for my time) because he acted like a jerk.
Surely, those protesting hate crime statutes can find a better example of such abuse--or perhaps none exist?
I once had a client who get aggressive with his landlord in the same way (again, not hat crime component) and was charged similarly. We were able to have it knocked down to a municipal offense (disorderly person), but he still had to pay a big fine (not to paying for my time) because he acted like a jerk.
Surely, those protesting hate crime statutes can find a better example of such abuse--or perhaps none exist?
Re: That’s a felony?
Uhh you didn’t see the original video the victim took did you RR?
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: That’s a felony?
I guess not; I only saw what was linked, but that's it. Is there something else you contend the video shows?
- MajGenl.Meade
- Posts: 20706
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
- Location: Groot Brakrivier
- Contact:
Re: That’s a felony?
He said nothing about opinions - only "rights". No one has a right to pop Jews in the oven; no AmerNazi (or drunken asshole) has the right to assault a woman because he has some "opinion" about her right to be in the USA or to wear a t-shirt with a flag he doesn't like. No one has the right to put someone else in fear of their safety.Bicycle Bill wrote:Our country was founded on the principles of freedom, and these principles included freedom of opinion and the freedom to express these opinions. We are not required to agree with or accept these opinions
Those are wrongs (and also illegal in case you and lib hadn't noticed that yet)
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Re: That’s a felony?
Well she originally posted a 30 minute plus video of the encounter of it the first 20 minutes of it were in full sight of a police officer doing jack shit (other than telling the victims brother to back off while trying to intervene). The fact that there was an officer on scene leads me to belive the “hate crime” charges will be dropped. I don’t think anyone wants to deal with answering the question of an officer allowing a hate crime to occur.
I’ll post a link to the video if I get the chance to look for it. (I was tempted to post a thread then but I couldn’t muster the energy so write out just how many different types of fucked up behavior that video exhibits.
I’ll post a link to the video if I get the chance to look for it. (I was tempted to post a thread then but I couldn’t muster the energy so write out just how many different types of fucked up behavior that video exhibits.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: That’s a felony?
I'm not so sure, just as his not acting does not negate the possibility of an assault charge from being prosecuted, it may not prevent a hate crime charge from being levied. Who knows what excuses he culd come up ith (I didn't hear what was being said, etc.). Only time will tell.
but I do agree with your previous post, that officer should be fired (or at least reprimanded and sent for supplemental training).
but I do agree with your previous post, that officer should be fired (or at least reprimanded and sent for supplemental training).
Re: That’s a felony?
https://www.npr.org/2018/07/11/62792928 ... t=20180711
This story has the link to the original video. Glad to hear the officer had the decency to resign
This story has the link to the original video. Glad to hear the officer had the decency to resign
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
- MajGenl.Meade
- Posts: 20706
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
- Location: Groot Brakrivier
- Contact:
Re: That’s a felony?
Hello?
The stories all say that the Forest Preserves officer concerned resigned and is no longer on the force.
He was in a bit of a Jam, I guess. Maybe he can get a job in Jellystone Park.
The stories all say that the Forest Preserves officer concerned resigned and is no longer on the force.
He was in a bit of a Jam, I guess. Maybe he can get a job in Jellystone Park.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Re: That’s a felony?
I hadn’t read any of the updates since I had originally saw the story.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: That’s a felony?
in case you haven t gotten the memo....,
this country is sick to death of lawyers.
you aren t some superior species allowed to dictate to all.
when the people reject you, you are done.
the peoples reps have the power in the end.
the pres appoints and senate confirms.
you are servants of the people , you are not to dictate to us.
the People may dismiss you, if they so choose.
know your place, lawyer....
you have become usurpers, and you will win or you will lose.
this country is sick to death of lawyers.
you aren t some superior species allowed to dictate to all.
when the people reject you, you are done.
the peoples reps have the power in the end.
the pres appoints and senate confirms.
you are servants of the people , you are not to dictate to us.
the People may dismiss you, if they so choose.
know your place, lawyer....
you have become usurpers, and you will win or you will lose.
Re: That’s a felony?
Reject them at your peril; many times they are all that stands behind you and a railroading government. But you can do what you want.
Re: That’s a felony?
and many times they ARE the railroading gov t.
nothing is inherently evil.
it is what it is.
nothing is inherently evil.
it is what it is.
Re: That’s a felony?
During the Vietnam phase of the Cold War a Puerto Rican guerrilla unit with support from Cuba killed US service members and sabotaged US fighter Aircraft in Puerto Rica. These heroic freedom fighters were acting in the name of the people of Puerto Rico and in support of the worldwide communist movement. They were eventually captured and imprisoned during which while time their Geneva conviction rights were ignored ( liberal interpretation )
Has any Puerto Rican official ever apologist for these killing and destruction?
Has any Puerto Rican official ever apologist for these killing and destruction?
I expected to be placed in an air force combat position such as security police, forward air control, pararescue or E.O.D. I would have liked dog handler. I had heard about the dog Nemo and was highly impressed. “SFB” is sad I didn’t end up in E.O.D.
- Econoline
- Posts: 9555
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
- Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans
Re: That’s a felony?
I'm guessing not. (I'm assuming you meant "apologized" rather than "apologist".) And if not, it's for the same reason no U.S. official (and no Michigan official, for that matter) has ever apologized to the people of Oklahoma for the actions of Timothy McVeigh...i.e., no government official ever supported the acts of the terrorists—before, during, or after the time those acts took place.liberty wrote:Has any Puerto Rican official ever apologist for these killing and destruction?
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
— God @The Tweet of God
— God @The Tweet of God
- MajGenl.Meade
- Posts: 20706
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
- Location: Groot Brakrivier
- Contact:
Re: That’s a felony?
Not only is Joe playing the part of wesw, but apparently CP and Big RR are one and the same! Aaaaargh! There may only be four real participants on this board!Crackpot wrote:I hadn’t read any of the updates since I had originally saw the story.
Unless I am also Guin...
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Re: That’s a felony?
I’m pretty sure you don’t have the balls to be me.MajGenl.Meade wrote:Not only is Joe playing the part of wesw, but apparently CP and Big RR are one and the same! Aaaaargh! There may only be four real participants on this board!Crackpot wrote:I hadn’t read any of the updates since I had originally saw the story.
Unless I am also Guin...
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
Re: That’s a felony?
Those are fighting words Meade; you, sir, are a scoundrel. I demand satisfaction and will meet you on the field of honor. My seconds will be in touch.