RE: Small town politics, ain't it great

RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (7/12/2009 7:26:29 PM)
Does not matter if i approve or not. Many enjoy anal sex, i approve, they have broken the law in some states as well. I do believe i may have done the same in the DA's position. I may not have. lesser of two evils. I can understand the frame of mind that may have lead up to the removal. As i said, he made his decision. he will have to face the consequences.

Arpig -> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (7/12/2009 7:44:18 PM)
I certainly hope he does face the consequences. And I fervently hope i would not have done the same were I in his position. What's right is right, and what ain't, ain't.

bamabbwsub -> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (7/12/2009 7:58:08 PM)
Wow. Some very interesting points of view here. Not to hijack this thread, but I present a similar (as I see it) Constitutional situation just to see what the opinions will be on it... What about the guy who, after the arrest of the "Jena Six" black juveniles in Louisiana, was arrested for driving around with a noose hanging out of his pickup truck? "Munsen was scheduled to begin a jury trial in U.S. District Court in Alexandria on Monday April 21st on one felony charge of conspiracy against rights and one misdemeanor charge of interfering with the federally protected right to travel." (http://whitereference.blogspot.com/2008/04/jena-six-noose-driver-jeremiah-munsen.html) Technically, wasn't the guy in the pickup truck just exercising his Constitutional right of Freedom of Speech? I think in both cases, these men knew that what they were doing was going to cause trouble (otherwise, why bother?), so what's the difference then between the noose and the upside-down flag? Why wasn't the flag guy arrested? As for symbols, a noose is merely a "piece of rope." But it's obvious that symbols (that is, what they signify) can elicit some very strong emotions in people, and individuals who dangle those symbols in a manner to invoke strong negative emotions merely reap what they sow.

tazzygirl -> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (7/12/2009 8:11:11 PM)
I believe the difference is the crime itself. His was a hate crime.......... quote: As a group of marchers waited for a bus to transport them from Alexandria, La., to Tennessee, a pickup truck allegedly cruised slowly by, a pair of nooses hanging from the back of the truck. Local police officers took notice and arrested the teen driver and his passenger. "It is a violation of federal law to intimidate, oppress, injure, or threaten people because of their race, and because people are exercising and enjoying rights guaranteed and protected by the laws and Constitution of the United States," U.S. Attorney Donald W. Washington said in a statement. "Our civil rights laws protect the civil rights of all Americans, and they remind us that we are all members of one particular race — the human race." The symbol that, police say, Munsen used to menace black marchers, was the same one that sparked the original controversy that thrust Jena, La., into its uncomfortable national spotlight. http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/BlackHistory/story?id=4184706&page=1 While it may seem similar, the guy flying the flag didnt do it to intimidate, threaten or injure anyone.

ThatDaveGuy69 -> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (7/12/2009 8:13:41 PM)
Sounds like a case of small town cops on a big-time power trip... But then again show my any person in any position of authority anywhere who isn't. Even my kid’s teacher has her own little trip going. It looks as though the police knew perfectly well that Vito's action was legal. But who really cares about that when a handful of citizens complained and made threats - let's fix one breach of the law (threats of violence against Vito and his property) with one of our own (trespassing, theft). Didn't anyone's mommy in that town ever say to their kid "just ignore him, he'll go away"??? Whine-whine-whine-whine-whine! So a bunch of law-'bidin'-tax-paying' cit-I-zens got upset over this guy's protest. Didn't even ONE of them try to talk to Vito? Ask him what it was all about? No wait, that would require effort. So much easier to swill back another Milwaukee's Best and make idle threats about that G-D commie over there-I'll show him, boy-howdy! I wonder how many of those people are now wishing they had just ignored the whole thing. And wait till they get the bill for trying to defend this in court! A protest is, at its very essence, meant to provoke a response. Protests are meant to convey your displeasure at an act, a policy, what-ever in a way that will garner the most attention for the least amount of effort. Like it or not, Vito's protest was VERY efficient. Hell, he's even got us perves here all over it! I don't mean to poke all that much fun at this little town north of my boarder but does anyone think this would happen in NYC, SF, Denver, Chicago, LA or any town with a population significantly larger than 1,000? Professional, seasoned police officers would have "peaceably diffused" the “potential riot” without taking the law into their own hands. I just can't help hearing my parents say "just ignore him". ahem... Moving beyond all the free speech issues and what-not, the whole licensing process is a little vague here: Looking at the Minutes of the meeting: 18(a) Should we grant a liquor license: no 18(b) Should we deny a liquor license: yes So the mayor is on-board with the license but the trustees weren’t? Not much of a mayor if he can’t get his agenda passed. But then again I’m used to politics here in IL and Chicago in particular… And why do you need 2 separate motions on this? Isn’t the 1st one sufficient? “due to current economic conditions and concerns within the community as to an additional licensed establishment, and to concerns regarding the location of the establishment” this could use some explanation. “current economic conditions” - Are they saying the town has it so good that they don’t need another business that would create jobs and generate revenue? Must be nice. Isn't the primary goal of this business to be a restaurant? I know licenses vary on how late you can serve, but there's no mention of that. Or was Vito's goal to open a bar and serve only enough food to call it a restaurant? “concerns within the community as to an additional licensed establishment" - Does this town already have a bar on every corner? How many liquor licenses are already there? And who set the limit? “concerns regarding the location of the establishment” – Is the new restaurant next to a church? So as I wondered before, is there an appeals process? Did Mr. Congine pursue an appeal? And what is the back-story to this? Was Vito not a well-liked person in the community before all this? Did he not offer to grease a few palms? Did the grease he chose have the wrong picture on the can? And wouldn’t the board members who cited those concerns be required to state exactly what those concerns were – and how to possibly overcome them? There’s got to be something else going on here – nobody says they have “concerns” and then doesn’t articulate them. What's REALLY going on here.... :D ~Dave

tazzygirl -> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (7/12/2009 8:16:18 PM)
quote: A protest is, at its very essence, meant to provoke a response. Protests are meant to convey your displeasure at an act, a policy, what-ever in a way that will garner the most attention for the least amount of effort. And the teen in the post above yours was also protesting, in the way he decided would garner the attention he wanted. guess that was ok too, huh

Arpig -> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (7/12/2009 8:18:03 PM)
quote: one felony charge of conspiracy against rights and one misdemeanor charge of interfering with the federally protected right to travel The first thing that struck me was the bizarre charges...conspiracy against rights??? wtf does that mean. I can understand a conspiracy to deny somebody their rights, but how does one conspire against an abstract thing like "rights". As to the 2nd charge, I utterly fail to see how displaying a noose in any way interferes with anybody's right to travel. Am I the only one who thinks that the DA is stretching things here to make a point? And that is my opinion of the issue. the DA is trying to make a point, but I hope he looses because while I really REALLY object to what the guy did, I also feel it is most definately protected under the 1st Amnedment. I suppose that it could be argued that displaying a noose like that could be construed as making a threat, but they didn't charge him with that, probably because they didn't think they could make it stick. I think if I were the DA, I would try to charge him with making a threat, and take my chances with the jury. I oppose the whole concept of hate crimes. They criminalize motive, they make certain thoughts illegal. They make a particular crime more serious if inflicted on some identifiable minority rather than the average Joe Whiteguy, and that is simply wrong. The law should apply equally to all and that includes the protection it offers and the penalties it applies. A white killing a black is in no way more reprehensible than a white killing a white. beating the shit out of a Jew should be no more illegal than beating the shit out of a presbytirian (sp?). The words of Evelyn Beatrice Hallare most apt to this discussion. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

rulemylife -> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (7/12/2009 8:21:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bamabbwsub Not to hijack this thread, but I present a similar (as I see it) Constitutional situation just to see what the opinions will be on it... What about the guy who, after the arrest of the "Jena Six" black juveniles in Louisiana, was arrested for driving around with a noose hanging out of his pickup truck? "Munsen was scheduled to begin a jury trial in U.S. District Court in Alexandria on Monday April 21st on one felony charge of conspiracy against rights and one misdemeanor charge of interfering with the federally protected right to travel." (http://whitereference.blogspot.com/2008/04/jena-six-noose-driver-jeremiah-munsen.html) Technically, wasn't the guy in the pickup truck just exercising his Constitutional right of Freedom of Speech? A similar situation? I think we only need to go to your source to see how ridiculous that concept is: White Reference White Reference is designed for the dissemination of news of interest to the White Nationalist community as well as others interested in such information. This includes reports of crime and oppression against White people worldwide, as well as accounts of White resistance.

LadyPact -> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (7/12/2009 8:21:51 PM)
I guess it's been so long ago that we've forgotten that at times when crowds have or may become an issue, it isn't unheard of to remove property or even incarcerate a person for their own well being. I'm not exactly proud of the fact that certain individuals were best protected by law enforcement by literally putting them behind bars. Innocent citizens that were kept safe until anger could die down.

tazzygirl -> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (7/12/2009 8:26:09 PM)
Four months later, federal prosecutors have announced the indictment of Jeremiah Munsen, 18, on a federal hate crime, and civil rights conspiracy charges, for "his role in threatening and intimidating marchers" as they attempted to cross a state line. The ABC link provided a slightly different view than the white reference site. http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/BlackHistory/story?id=4184706&page=1

bamabbwsub -> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (7/12/2009 8:28:12 PM)
quote: I think we only need to go to your source to see how ridiculous that concept is: For the record, I am not an advocate of that particular website, and in fact didn't even know it existed until I quoted it. I merely did a Google search to find the information about what charges were brought against the guy, and that was the first one I came to. Regardless of the source, I believe the facts are still valid.

Arpig -> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (7/12/2009 8:29:04 PM)
I have not forgotten that such things were done (and porbably still are), but the fact that they were done does not make them right. If somebody is in danger from a mob, then I see nothing wrong with the police taking that person to a safe place, such as the police station and then arresting those who were endangering the person in question, but to incarcerate them until things cooled off would be wrong. The law states that you cannot threaten somebody. It should either be enforced or repealed, not enforced when convenient and ignored when inconvenient.

bamabbwsub -> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (7/12/2009 8:36:02 PM)
Thank you for the clarification between the two situations, tazzygirl. I see the difference. I do believe that Munsen was initially arrested because of the damage that he could have caused by flaunting his racism at that particular place and time. However, I also believe that the prosecutors later found a better charge to stick to him. I have to say, though, that a quote from the ABC article pretty much sums up both situations: "I wish we had a charge...for aggravated ignorance," an Alexandria police officer, involved in Munsen's original arrest, said at the time. "Because this is a classic case." [:D]

Arpig -> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (7/12/2009 8:46:57 PM)
quote: "I wish we had a charge...for aggravated ignorance," an Alexandria police officer, involved in Munsen's original arrest, said at the time. "Because this is a classic case." I think this statement cuts right to the heart of the issue. This Munsen kid is an ignorant asshole, but being an ignorant asshole is perfectly legal.

tazzygirl -> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (7/12/2009 8:47:42 PM)
Ignorance is no defence :D

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (7/12/2009 9:10:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl I believe the difference is the crime itself. His was a hate crime.......... quote: As a group of marchers waited for a bus to transport them from Alexandria, La., to Tennessee, a pickup truck allegedly cruised slowly by, a pair of nooses hanging from the back of the truck. Local police officers took notice and arrested the teen driver and his passenger. "It is a violation of federal law to intimidate, oppress, injure, or threaten people because of their race, and because people are exercising and enjoying rights guaranteed and protected by the laws and Constitution of the United States," U.S. Attorney Donald W. Washington said in a statement. "Our civil rights laws protect the civil rights of all Americans, and they remind us that we are all members of one particular race — the human race." The symbol that, police say, Munsen used to menace black marchers, was the same one that sparked the original controversy that thrust Jena, La., into its uncomfortable national spotlight. http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/BlackHistory/story?id=4184706&page=1 While it may seem similar, the guy flying the flag didnt do it to intimidate, threaten or injure anyone. Which then raises the thorny issue of "hate crimes". I am not as familiar with those laws as I am with terroristic threats. In those cases it is "the eye of the beholder" that matters, not the perpetrators intent. If someone thinks your threat is real, it doesnt matter if you were "just kidding". Is it the same for a hate crime? Can someone claim that a symbol intimidated them, and thats what matters,not that you happened to be coming home from a fraternity hazing and had a couple of nooses hanging around? (Not that this was the factual situation, just an example). If intent does matter, then I have a real problem with the entire concept of a hate crime where there isnt clear evidence of that intent. Mind reading isnt reasonable doubt.

tazzygirl -> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (7/12/2009 9:37:16 PM)
The article stated they tried to prevent this group from crossing the state line... thatthey did so by driving my with nooses hanging from the truck.. a group in a town that was known for another hate crime, and thats what the group was marching against. i dont think its a stretch or a leap to draw the conclusion they came up with.

Arpig -> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (7/12/2009 9:48:52 PM)
OK, I can see where they came up with the interfering with the right to travel charge. I still think its a pretty lame charge, to me it says they wanted to charge him for displaying the noose, but didn't think they could make it stick, so they are charging him with some other creatively interpreted charges. If displaying the nooses is considered a threat, then why not charge him with threatening the marchers, which was most probably his intent in the first place? Why hide behind rather obscure statutes that were most likely never intended to deal with anything close to this situation? I strongly suspect they didn't charge him with threatening the marchers for two reasons; 1) He made no actual overt threat, and 2) He could claim the 1st Amendment. I suspect the DA decided to go the obscure charges route because he didn't think he could make the proper charge stick. Which brings up the question of what exactly a DA is supposed to do. Charge people with the proper crime even when they aren't likely to win, or should they charge them with some combination of lesser charges that they have a better chance of winning. Myself I am in favour of the former.

ThatDaveGuy69 -> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (7/12/2009 10:16:59 PM)
As distateful as you or I might find his actions, I would have to say he was within his rights. As stated so many times: no one has a right to not be offended. Keep in mind this other topic is concerned with race, a whole different can of worms. Seems to me - and this is just my humble opinion - that if the group was so intimidated by one nutball teen then they really need to re-group and grow a few spines. Maybe have a few really big bad-ass-mo-fo's standing at the front of the line, lookin' all menacing and such... And as for the residents of Crivits, sounds like they should grow a few spianl cells of their own. Maybe our boy Vito really is just a whiny little bitch who didn't get his way. You can't charge people with that (too bad, though) and you sure as hell can't deny his right to be a whiny little bitch. I SO want to see how the court case turns out. ~Dave

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great (7/12/2009 10:53:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl The article stated they tried to prevent this group from crossing the state line... thatthey did so by driving my with nooses hanging from the truck.. a group in a town that was known for another hate crime, and thats what the group was marching against. i dont think its a stretch or a leap to draw the conclusion they came up with. Which of course has nothing to do with my questions about hate crimes.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875