Stupid Asshole Deprived of Free Speech & Due Process by Other Stupid Assholes

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Your former sigline was funnier

This one is akin to Bob Hope telling us his arms are tired as he just flew in.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Every freedom has it's price. Free speech included.

Ya, dropping the N-bomb unabridged is more important than keeping the streets safe.

Quote

No, your point has been that certain subjects should be suppressed and not protected under free speech.

Oh, which did I give license too and which did I require suppression?

Quote

Big difference between that and not being allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. If you can't make that distinction then you are beyond any help I can give you.

Both are irresponsible and can lead to injury and death, if you want to semantically split them into tiny %'s to make a point, have fun. I see teh high courts usually side with me.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

AZ has disorderly conduct statutes:

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/02904.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

13-2904. Disorderly conduct; classification

A. A person commits disorderly conduct if, with intent to disturb the peace or quiet of a neighborhood, family or person, or with knowledge of doing so, such person:

1. Engages in fighting, violent or seriously disruptive behavior; or

2. Makes unreasonable noise; or

3. Uses abusive or offensive language or gestures to any person present in a manner likely to provoke immediate physical retaliation by such person; or

4. Makes any protracted commotion, utterance or display with the intent to prevent the transaction of the business of a lawful meeting, gathering or procession; or

5. Refuses to obey a lawful order to disperse issued to maintain public safety in dangerous proximity to a fire, a hazard or any other emergency; or

6. Recklessly handles, displays or discharges a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.

B. Disorderly conduct under subsection A, paragraph 6 is a class 6 felony. Disorderly conduct under subsection A, paragraph 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 is a class 1 misdemeanor.

Key word there being "intent".
Being the world famous legal expert you are you should know that and how hard it can be to prove intent.

Being the forum layperson I will help. Intent = mens rea; virtually all criminal cases must have a culmination of mens rea and actus reaus, whether explicitly stated or not. Civil cases need only have actus reus.

Again, you wanna go to the south side, find a run down BB court with a bunch of locals playing ball and say, "Hey, you niggers wanna get a job and quit living off my welfare" or some other brilliant neck passage? Now go before a jury and see how they view the intent. Or even a civil rights meet, go downtown and start yelling, "You fucking niggers just want everything for free" or some other tea bagger expression of freedom of speech and if a riot or even small disorder breaks out, see how that works in front of a jury.

I could go on and list examples, but the key here is based upon ends justify the means, if nothing breaks out, you won't get the requisite police attention and might get away, but if a black person views this ignorance as unacceptable and decides to swing, it's basically on you. You provoked it - you own it; scream 1st all you want, the courts are here to set a tone to avoid LA riots and the like, fuck your Const rights. Think a jury would find any different? And in Nazizona you don't get a jury unless they are seeking time.

BTW, intent is proven through the totality of circumstances, in most cases where the N-bomb is dropped with people of color present, there is an assumed intent perceived that observers should recognize it won't go over well. Either way, intent is an issue for a jury, so rots-a-ruck with that one.

As you said, it is an issue for a jury. Which makes your entire argument and issue for a jury. Which mean your acting like you know what the outcome would be is, as usual, a bunch of BS.
When you get a REAL law degree, then we will listen.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Your former sigline was funnier

Ok, I'll put the old one back. Or something similar.


This any better?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

....
This any better?

Sorry, no. The *Hammer* was the best I ever read here - it really was

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

AZ has disorderly conduct statutes:

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/02904.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

13-2904. Disorderly conduct; classification

A. A person commits disorderly conduct if, with intent to disturb the peace or quiet of a neighborhood, family or person, or with knowledge of doing so, such person:

1. Engages in fighting, violent or seriously disruptive behavior; or

2. Makes unreasonable noise; or

3. Uses abusive or offensive language or gestures to any person present in a manner likely to provoke immediate physical retaliation by such person; or

4. Makes any protracted commotion, utterance or display with the intent to prevent the transaction of the business of a lawful meeting, gathering or procession; or

5. Refuses to obey a lawful order to disperse issued to maintain public safety in dangerous proximity to a fire, a hazard or any other emergency; or

6. Recklessly handles, displays or discharges a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.

B. Disorderly conduct under subsection A, paragraph 6 is a class 6 felony. Disorderly conduct under subsection A, paragraph 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 is a class 1 misdemeanor.

Key word there being "intent".
Being the world famous legal expert you are you should know that and how hard it can be to prove intent.

Being the forum layperson I will help. Intent = mens rea; virtually all criminal cases must have a culmination of mens rea and actus reaus, whether explicitly stated or not. Civil cases need only have actus reus.

Again, you wanna go to the south side, find a run down BB court with a bunch of locals playing ball and say, "Hey, you niggers wanna get a job and quit living off my welfare" or some other brilliant neck passage? Now go before a jury and see how they view the intent. Or even a civil rights meet, go downtown and start yelling, "You fucking niggers just want everything for free" or some other tea bagger expression of freedom of speech and if a riot or even small disorder breaks out, see how that works in front of a jury.

I could go on and list examples, but the key here is based upon ends justify the means, if nothing breaks out, you won't get the requisite police attention and might get away, but if a black person views this ignorance as unacceptable and decides to swing, it's basically on you. You provoked it - you own it; scream 1st all you want, the courts are here to set a tone to avoid LA riots and the like, fuck your Const rights. Think a jury would find any different? And in Nazizona you don't get a jury unless they are seeking time.

BTW, intent is proven through the totality of circumstances, in most cases where the N-bomb is dropped with people of color present, there is an assumed intent perceived that observers should recognize it won't go over well. Either way, intent is an issue for a jury, so rots-a-ruck with that one.

As you said, it is an issue for a jury. Which makes your entire argument and issue for a jury. Which mean your acting like you know what the outcome would be is, as usual, a bunch of BS.
When you get a REAL law degree, then we will listen.

Right, if you ever bothered watching a jury work and the outcome you would realize they tend to side with the state. You and people who use your, "gotta prove me to a gnats ass to convict" will try to reason that shit out. Juries don't liek to lied to, to be played, so if you come in with, "I called him a nigger cause he was acting like one, I didn't mean to incite anything or be disorderly." They're gonna think, "Ya asshole, running that off certainly wouldn't cause an ugly situation, nawwww." Even if you think you had a case, jurors are laypeople and laypeople don't often bother with legal standards; they go from their guts. And if you can't figure where I'm going, look up Jury Nullification and you will get it.

As for your fantasy of never knowing what a jury will do, obviously, but you can understand a probability by watching juries, talking to them, etc. There are no guarantees either way, the 95 jury acquitted a guilty OJ, the LV jury just convicted OJ on a set-up which he bought into with a jury that didn't even come close to passing constitutional muster. The court system isn't an exact science and tehy don't always follow the US Const, if you go around screaming, "nigger" and think the Const will protect you, you are truely not aware of the reality of the court system.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Your former sigline was funnier

Ok, I'll put the old one back. Or something similar.


This any better?

http://instantrimshot.com/

Yea, it's awesome

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Sorry, watching Matlock doesn't count.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Sorry, watching Matlock doesn't count.

Then quit watching and look up legal terms like, "jury Nullification" and that's only if the jury buys the horseshit of a defendant claiming he was running his mouth but wasn't trying to be intentionally disorderly. As a juror I would be offended if some assfuck tried to sell me that, as a judge I would just yawn. Here's the last post in case you want to actually address any of it:

Right, if you ever bothered watching a jury work and the outcome you would realize they tend to side with the state. You and people who use your, "gotta prove me to a gnats ass to convict" will try to reason that shit out. Juries don't liek to lied to, to be played, so if you come in with, "I called him a nigger cause he was acting like one, I didn't mean to incite anything or be disorderly." They're gonna think, "Ya asshole, running that off certainly wouldn't cause an ugly situation, nawwww." Even if you think you had a case, jurors are laypeople and laypeople don't often bother with legal standards; they go from their guts. And if you can't figure where I'm going, look up Jury Nullification and you will get it.

As for your fantasy of never knowing what a jury will do, obviously, but you can understand a probability by watching juries, talking to them, etc. There are no guarantees either way, the 95 jury acquitted a guilty OJ, the LV jury just convicted OJ on a set-up which he bought into with a jury that didn't even come close to passing constitutional muster. The court system isn't an exact science and tehy don't always follow the US Const, if you go around screaming, "nigger" and think the Const will protect you, you are truely not aware of the reality of the court system.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Ok, now I understand where you are coming from.
1: Lucky decides what should be protected under the 1st. If you don't like his decision then fuck ye, you're an asshole. But only lucky is allowed to say so.
2: Lucky knows what the jury will decise so we can dispense with the formallity of having one and just ask lucky what the verdict is.
3: No need for law schools. A two year CJ degree and watching Matlock will suffice. Hey, it worked for lucky!

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Ok, now I understand where you are coming from.
1: Lucky decides what should be protected under the 1st. If you don't like his decision then fuck ye, you're an asshole. But only lucky is allowed to say so.
2: Lucky knows what the jury will decise so we can dispense with the formallity of having one and just ask lucky what the verdict is.
3: No need for law schools. A two year CJ degree and watching Matlock will suffice. Hey, it worked for lucky!

So let me understand Belgian waffles. He wants us to understand this rigid guarantee that we can call whoever, whatever and it be protected absolutley. Then of course we have to ignore the unpredictable and usually pro-prosecutorial ways of juries, not to mention they are generally comprised of wholly laypeople who say, "fuck the law, it has it wrong here."

Of course in order to believe Belgian we also have to believe the constitution is actually followed, espin lower courts. We must then ignore many cities and appellate courts for denying permits to spread hate of any kind in fear of civil unrest; they put civil order in front of a neck babbling on about their hate for certain people. So all the high courts that refuse permits agree with me, Belgian can't even address my post and yet he has it all figured out, even tho he is trumped by many appellate courts.

Then quit watching and look up legal terms like, "jury Nullification" and that's only if the jury buys the horseshit of a defendant claiming he was running his mouth but wasn't trying to be intentionally disorderly. As a juror I would be offended if some assfuck tried to sell me that, as a judge I would just yawn. Here's the last post in case you want to actually address any of it:

Right, if you ever bothered watching a jury work and the outcome you would realize they tend to side with the state. You and people who use your, "gotta prove me to a gnats ass to convict" will try to reason that shit out. Juries don't liek to lied to, to be played, so if you come in with, "I called him a nigger cause he was acting like one, I didn't mean to incite anything or be disorderly." They're gonna think, "Ya asshole, running that off certainly wouldn't cause an ugly situation, nawwww." Even if you think you had a case, jurors are laypeople and laypeople don't often bother with legal standards; they go from their guts. And if you can't figure where I'm going, look up Jury Nullification and you will get it.

As for your fantasy of never knowing what a jury will do, obviously, but you can understand a probability by watching juries, talking to them, etc. There are no guarantees either way, the 95 jury acquitted a guilty OJ, the LV jury just convicted OJ on a set-up which he bought into with a jury that didn't even come close to passing constitutional muster. The court system isn't an exact science and tehy don't always follow the US Const, if you go around screaming, "nigger" and think the Const will protect you, you are truely not aware of the reality of the court system.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Lucky, you sure have a way of forming people's views to what you think they are.
I never said that the right to free speech is absolute. In fact, i have stated here more than once that it has limits.

I know what jury nullification is. Don't need to look it up like you did. Your bringing the concept into the discussion shows just how far you want to stretch to prove whatever point it is you are trying to prove.
Like I said, when you get a REAL law degree, then you can preach. Until then your opinion is meaningless. (But if I want to know how to file papers I know who to ask )

And why, oh why, do you keep posting the same rhetorical BS over and over? Is it just so you have something to reply to?
You started off by saying we don't have the right to free speech concerning racial bigotry, now you have slowly backstepped and now have narrowed it down to very specific circumstances, which is what several of us have been trying to tell you.
I'm glad to see you have finally come around and see the light.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Lucky, you sure have a way of forming people's views to what you think they are.

I find it funny that anyone responds to him. After he called the Onion an RW rag and the video from the Onion "real and legit", I just skip by his post.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Lucky, you sure have a way of forming people's views to what you think they are.

I find it funny that anyone responds to him. After he called the Onion an RW rag and the video from the Onion "real and legit", I just skip by his post.

Actually I asked; IS THIS FUCKING LEGIT?

Hey, I never had seen the Onion before. It happened to your conservative boy hwt with CNNBC in the same light. Of course you won't cite that.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Lucky, you sure have a way of forming people's views to what you think they are.
I never said that the right to free speech is absolute. In fact, i have stated here more than once that it has limits.

Right, you state, for the record, the 1st is limited, then you advocate unlimited protections with it; it's called talking out of the side of your face.

Quote

I know what jury nullification is. Don't need to look it up like you did.

I learned that term long before you were building trailers, pretending they were aircraft.

Quote

Your bringing the concept into the discussion shows just how far you want to stretch to prove whatever point it is you are trying to prove.

I'm just showing a part of the process of any idiots screaming, "I HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS" as they get hauled off for inciting a riot.

Quote

Like I said, when you get a REAL law degree, then you can preach.

Ad hominem for lack of any real argument aginst the state stute I posted.

Quote

Until then your opinion is meaningless.

Opions are meaningless, supported arguments with state statute as I have presented have value.

Quote

And why, oh why, do you keep posting the same rhetorical BS over and over? Is it just so you have something to reply to?

You keep refusing to address it. Why do you keep running from it?

Quote

You started off by saying we don't have the right to free speech concerning racial bigotry, now you have slowly backstepped and now have narrowed it down to very specific circumstances, which is what several of us have been trying to tell you.

Cite this perceived progress. And as they say, the law usually asks more questions than it answers. An overview of how I see the free speech law application is that you can get away with whatever you can, if it intrudes on another's civil rights, your 1st protection is junior to that. If you're looking for an absolute in teh law, you really don't understand it, this is why justices will have what they call, "Bright line rules" as they issue decisions.

Brown v Board of Education: Seperate but eqqual.

Terry v Ohio: Pat and frisk

Miranda: a bit longer, but the Miranda rts came out on a card

Etc, Etc.....

That doesn't mean that in Terry you can only pat and frisk the outer garments, you start with that and if you discover an item that could be a weapon, you go further. Of course that is all challengeable from several angles, so there is no absolute law, just a general direction. I don't thinkmost peopel understand these renderings and most infringements never get challenged, so they become moot anyway.

Quote

I'm glad to see you have finally come around and see the light.

I"ve known for a long time that you should stick with non-motorized boxes on wheels and leave teh law alone

Basically there is no absolute law, no absolute protection, it comes down to justices deciding who they will side with on the court and then tehy use other rationale to justify it.

If you go around running the mouth and trying to hide behind the 1st, you will probably find yourself in trouble and rambling pissed about the US Const protections you thought you had. I considered myself a constitutionalist as I entered college and found that virtually all my JUS teachers, who were lawyers usually, would just roll their eyes. It is so vague and reallyh unenforceable; if you think cops give a fuck about it, theink again. They just do what they want and let the judge sort it out an apply the const to it.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

then you advocate unlimited protections with it

Never stated that and i challenge you to show me where i did.

Quote

Basically there is no absolute law, no absolute protection, it comes down to justices deciding who they will side with on the court and then tehy use other rationale to justify it.

No shit, Sherlock. It took you long enough to admit that.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

...The shame, as I see it, is how many people in the US who favor the stifling of speech they abhor - as if they are the ones who desire the totalitarian power to decide what is permissible to say.

That's Americans at their best.

"I support your right to Free Speech as long as you don't say anything that pisses ME off."

There's your assholes.

No, the assholes are: go ahead and say what you want, if it incites riots, so what? If people die, so what? Absolute free speech is more important than civil order.

No, the assholes are the ones saying, "Waaaaaa, he said something I don't like so I'll go out and trash the neighborhood and kill some people. That'll show 'em, won't it?"

Variation on the theme: "That guy MADE me do it because he said something I don't like so it's HIS fault, not mine."

Are you claiming to be one of those? ...just askin'.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239