Support NeoGAF

[Rumblebones]

Her, and yes, there tends not to be any slippery slopes, false equivalence, and other nonsense among our family when it comes to discussions.

You are full of it and it is so blatantly obvious I actually laughed reading your post.

Why do you feel the need make things up? You might have a lawyer for a cousin, but you did not speak to her and got her take in the time you claimed to have done it.

 

[marrec]

The issue isn't that he was stopped, but how he was stopped. In this case, being struck in he head with a bat. So what you're saying here is that if somebody is telling minors they should be raped, that in your mind it is legally justifiable to strike them in the head with a bat. That's at least what your actions of aquitting would be doing.

I think it's morally justifiable, which is all that's required for me as a juror.

There was an interesting Radiolab episode on this kind of thing recently, but jurors are not required to bring back a guilty verdict even if the evidence is clear that they broke the law. Laws are all fine and well, but we cannot just blindly accept the letter of the law as absolute with no exceptions.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Your point of "if only it was illegal to do something, people wouldn't criminally assault the people doing it" is stupid on a fundamental level.

Trying to segue into a conversation about limiting the first amendment is a distraction in a thread about someone getting hit in the head with a bat.

This is by far more than just about the bat but cool.

 

[shintoki]

Maybe it was god with a message.

 

[Opto]

Imma try to feel bad but ehhhh

 

[Two Words]

I think it's morally justifiable, which is all that's required for me as a juror.

There was an interesting Radiolab episode on this kind of thing recently, but jurors are not required to bring back a guilty verdict even if the evidence is clear that they broke the law.

As a black guy, fuck this. This is how guilty white people get off, innocent black people are found guilty, and how guilty black people do double the time.

Personal morals don't belong in a jury room. You're playing with people's lives and setting legal precedence.

 

[mashoutposse]

The teenagers had the law on their side. The preacher should have been arrested for misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

http://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/02904.htm

Someone familiar with the laws of his own state should've been present. Both sides would've learned a great deal.

Instead, an impulsive young woman spent 60 days in jail and imposed a serious handicap on herself for the rest of her life in the US.

 

[Psychoward]

I see over 10 pages later of when I went to sleep there are still people who consider someone hitting a pro-schoolgirl/lgbt-raper is a worse person than someone preaching that schoolgirls/LGBT people deserve to be raped and assaulted one of them

Cool

 

[daviyoung]

The teenagers had the law on their side. The preacher should have been arrested for misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

http://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/02904.htm

Someone familiar with the laws of his own state should've been present. Both sides would've learned a great deal.

Instead, an impulsive young woman spent 60 days in jail and imposed a serious handicap on herself for the rest of her life in the US.

There we go. Easy number 2. Turns out his speech isn't fully protected, and it's not because he's a straight white male.

 

[old manatee]

I see over 10 pages later of when I went to sleep there are still people who consider someone hitting a pro-schoolgirl/lgbt-raper is a worse person than someone preaching that schoolgirls/LGBT people deserve to be raped

Cool

Apparently he's just voicing 'opinions'.

 

[MegaMelon]

I don't really have any sympathy for this guy even though technically I guess it wouldn't be lawful to give him a wack. I'm more concerned that someone like him would retaliate physically or pull out a gun or something leading to an innocent person getting hurt or killed.

 

[fabricated backlash]

Gotta be honest, I laughed out loud when I heard the hit. Still, this was assault, no matter how shitty a person the target is. Still don't feel bad about him getting hit.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Legally, what he did would not be construed in a court as inciting violence. First amendment case law is pretty clear incitement has to be of the "Go kill that guy right there" variety, not the layers of abstraction involved in saying someone deserves to have a particular ill befall them. Also, it's questionable whether or not what he is doing counts as harassment, given harassment typically has to be sustained and targeted against a specific individual, not shouted as a generality for the world to hear.

He could maaaaaaybe be hit with disturbing the peace, but even that is sketchy, tbh.

It's genuinely not, he was standing across the street yelling shit at students for an extended period, that absolutely constitutes harassment. If he stood outside your house with a megaphone citing that you deserved to be raped does that not constitute harassment. Also lol at the idea that a man making terroristic threats is considered "sketchy" for disturbing the peace.

She could have very easily killed him.

I'm not sure how or why you're going to justify that.

Imagine if like at that university he had done to one of these kids what he did to that woman unprovoked if they had continued to let him do whatever he wants?

You are full of it and it is so blatantly obvious I actually laughed reading your post.

Why do you feel the need make things up? You might have lawyer for a cousin, but you did not speak to her and got her take in the time you claimed to have done it.

You want me to pm you the call record or nah?

 

[marrec]

As a black guy, fuck this. This is how guilty white people get off, innocent black people are found guilty, and how guilty black people do double the time.

Personal morals don't belong in a jury room. You're playing with people's lives and setting legal precedence.

You're 100% wrong, legally at least. If you want to argue philosophically that's fine.

http://www.radiolab.org/story/null-and-void/

I understand your position, but as I said, absolutionism is garbage. Especially when laws are clearly fallible.

 

[moggio]

... it's not because he's a straight white male.

It does usually help.

 

[Ketkat]

You are full of it and it is so blatantly obvious I actually laughed reading your post.

Why do you feel the need make things up? You might have lawyer for a cousin, but you did not speak to her and got her take in the time you claimed to have done it.

I'm really confused on this. 8 minutes is enough time for a phone call and a post easily. Why is this "blatantly obvious" to you?

 

[gutter_trash]

The teenagers had the law on their side. The preacher should have been arrested for misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

http://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/02904.htm

Someone familiar with the laws of his own state should've been present. Both sides would've learned a great deal.

Instead, an impulsive young woman spent 60 days in jail and imposed a serious handicap on herself for the rest of her life in the US.

thank you!

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.

 

[daviyoung]

You want me to pm you the call record or nah?

Yes please

 

[Two Words]

You're 100% wrong, legally at least. If you want to argue philosophically that's fine.

http://www.radiolab.org/story/null-and-void/

I understand your position, but as I said, absolutionism is garbage. Especially when laws are clearly fallible.

You say the laws are clearly fallible. Do you feel there is a law missing that protects people to strike heinous speakers in the head with bats?

 

[marrec]

You say the laws are clearly fallible. Do you feel there is a law missing that protects people to strike heinous speakers in the head with bats?

Now you're just being intentionally obtuse, it makes you look ignorant.

 

[Yayate]

I see over 10 pages later of when I went to sleep there are still people who consider someone hitting a pro-schoolgirl/lgbt-raper is a worse person than someone preaching that schoolgirls/LGBT people deserve to be raped and assaulted one of them

Cool

Gotta protect his right to have his opinion! It's not like threats of rape have ever hurt anyone! Sticks, stones, bones, words, etc. Is a threat of rape even a threat of violence? This adult woman clearly premeditated her desire to smack this poor, innocent guy with a baseball bat. Probably spent hours thinking about what and how she would do, and wasn't in anyway driven by impulse. She's clearly crazy! He's just a Christian and what she did was far more disgusting!



Gotta make sure we all know the woman deserves to get her life ruined over an emotional, brash mistake. And the dude doesn't deserve any sort of punishment because he's just practicing his Free Speech.

 

[Crossing Eden]

There we go. Easy number 2. Turns out his speech isn't fully protected, and it's not because he's a straight white male.

I meant in terms of how fast the authorities respond to shit like this based on the race of the harasser.

 

[Riposte]

We limit the first amendment all the damn time.

Example, you can't go out with a sign saying "Death to Americans, support ISIS".

But for some reason walking around with a sign in front of minors saying "You deserve to be raped." is A-Okay.

In either case, it's possible one could be charged with something. Then it would be examined in court.

The first amendment being limited (although this does not happen "all the damn time" and you actually have to put a lot of effort into crossing a line) has nothing to do with the people at the scene.

 

[Jenov]

The solution here isn't to condone or encourage violence, people arguing that as an appropriate response are off the mark. What you really should be advocating is to change freedom of speech laws so that there are exceptions for hate speech like some countries in the EU.

 

[Alavard]

The teenagers had the law on their side. The preacher should have been arrested for misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

http://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/02904.htm

Someone familiar with the laws of his own state should've been present. Both sides would've learned a great deal.

Instead, an impulsive young woman spent 60 days in jail and imposed a serious handicap on herself for the rest of her life in the US.

See, here's what really pisses me off about the situation: from the original news, it's clear this had been going on for some time at multiple high schools. And since a teacher got involved, we know that school knows what's going on. And it's highly unlikely no one has reported to incidents to administration at the other schools he's been doing this at.

So this means either the schools never informed the police (in which case, I would say they failed their duty to protect their students), or the police never acted.

 

[vordhosbn]

thank you!

I guess this is why people always scream "you're harassing me" at the slightest shove or raising of their voice lol

come back to reality dude

 

[chadtwo]

Now you're just being intentionally obtuse, it makes you look ignorant.

Does this much condescension take practice?

 

[Rumblebones]

You want me to pm you the call record or nah?

You do what you want, but you're not going to convince me your cousin saw the entire video and then broke it down for you in the time you claimed she did it. Not unless she is a terrible lawyer that skimmed through the video or gave a half arsed "sure, I guess" type of response to leading questions. The way lawyers are trained to think precludes any of the behaviour that would go into such a premature response, and certainly any such definitive response you claim to have gotten.

I'm really confused on this. 8 minutes is enough time for a phone call and a post easily. Why is this "blatantly obvious" to you?

Timing of it is beyond suspect. The video by itself is 7 minutes and 45 seconds. That leaves about 15 seconds of legal analysis, lol.

 

[marrec]

Does this much condescension take practice?

It comes naturally actually!

 

[Crossing Eden]

See, here's what really pisses me off about the situation: from the original news, it's clear this had been going on for some time at multiple high schools. And since a teacher got involved, we know that school knows what's going on. And it's highly unlikely no one has reported to incidents to administration at the other schools he's been doing this at.

So this means either the schools never informed the police (in which case, I would say they failed their duty to protect their students), or the police never acted.

There have been reports of campus police protecting him even tho he's the harasser.

You do what you want, but you're not going to convince me your cousin saw the entire video and then broke it down for you in the time you claimed she did it. Not unless she is a terrible lawyer that skimmed through the video or gave a half arsed "sure, I guess" type of response to leading questions. The way lawyers are trained to think precludes any of the behaviour that would go into such a premature response, and certainly any such definitive response you claim to have gotten.

The call was twelve minutes long and there are several posts above you citing that no, his speech was not protected. Hold that L.

I guess this is why people always scream "you're harassing me" at the slightest shove or raising of their voice lol

come back to reality dude

Uh what? Depending on the context both of these things absolutely constitute harassment. Including this context. How do you not see that?

 

[Two Words]

Now you're just being intentionally obtuse, it makes you look ignorant.

Look, you can't have it both ways. You can't say you'd acquit somebody for hitting somebody on the head with a bat over heinous speech and also think a law shouldn't be on the books to protect the very act you are acquitting under those circumstances. It only sounds absurd because it is a contradiction on your part.

 

[chadtwo]

It comes naturally actually!

Well hey as long as you're aware of it I guess...

But it does sort of make you sound like a dick, without knowing anything else about you.

 

[marrec]

Look, you can't have it both ways. You can't say you'd acquit somebody for hitting somebody on the head with a bat over heinous speech and also think a law shouldn't be on the books to protect the very act you are acquitting under those circumstances. It only sounds absurd because it is a contradiction on your part.

No, you actually can have it both ways, which is what I'm trying to tell you.

Jurors aren't going to set precedent by voting to acquit in a case like this. I can feel it's morally right, what she did, while also not wanting everyone to go around conking people over the head with bats.

What law should exist, is one protecting minors from having threats of rape levied against them.

Well hey as long as you're aware of it I guess...

But it does sort of make you sound like a dick, without knowing anything else about you.

I'm a complete asshole but it's endearing once you get to know me.

 

[old manatee]

It's just school zone opinions.

 

[Two Words]

No, you actually can have it both ways, which is what I'm trying to tell you.

Jurors aren't going to set precedent by voting to acquit in a case like this. I can feel it's morally right, what she did, while also not wanting everyone to go around conking people over the head with bats.

What law should exist, is one protecting minors from having threats of rape levied against them.



I'm a complete asshole but it's endearing once you get to know me.

I don't care what they can do. Just because you can be contradictory doesn't mean you aren't being contradictory. What you are saying is very much a contradiction.

 

[gutter_trash]

I guess this is why people always scream "you're harassing me" at the slightest shove or raising of their voice lol

come back to reality dude

minors should not be harrased by irrelivant adults inside a school zone

 

[chadtwo]

No, you actually can have it both ways, which is what I'm trying to tell you.

Jurors aren't going to set precedent by voting to acquit in a case like this. I can feel it's morally right, what she did, while also not wanting everyone to go around conking people over the head with bats.

What law should exist, is one protecting minors from having threats of rape levied against them.



I'm a complete asshole but it's endearing once you get to know me.

Fair enough

 

[Psychoward]

I guess this is why people always scream "you're harassing me" at the slightest shove or raising of their voice lol

come back to reality dude

A push, a shove, a raised voice, saying school children deserve to be raped on school grounds, all equal!

 

[kamineko]

I'm pretty sure that if I, a grown man, stood around outside my old high school yelling at girls about rape and hell, the only question would be whether the cops arrested me before my ass got beat or not.

It certainly would not be a question of how often I could return and do the same thing repeatedly without consequence.

I think I woulda gone for the leg instead of the head, but I dunno how long citizens are expected to tolerate this kind of threatening incitement. I guess some posts suggest indefinitely? I don't have a daughter, but I'm not sure how high-minded I would be about someone yelling at my daughter in this way repeatedly. Especially if the both the school and the city took no action in accordance with local laws that forbid the man's behavior.

I get free speech absolutism, but it's hard to know whether anyone could adhere to their lofty ideals in an ongoing, open-ended scenario that directly affected themselves and their loved ones.

Is there a compelling argument for anyone to be deservingly raped? I don't see how it is just another opinion, like "what's your favorite color" or some kind of shit

 

[Yayate]

I guess this is why people always scream "you're harassing me" at the slightest shove or raising of their voice lol

come back to reality dude

Gotta downplay what happened here by comparing it to the slightest shove or raising of their voice.

 

[marrec]

I don't care what they can do. Just because you can be contradictory doesn't mean you aren't being contradictory. What you are saying is very much a contradiction.

And?

You already know that I think absolutionism is garbage (the height of hubris, in fact). Contradictions in the letter of the law do not necessarily lead to internal moral contradictions. There is no hypocrisy in my stance.

 

[Crossing Eden]

minors should not be harassed by irrelevant adults inside a school zone

You know i'm actually kinda curious about what the current goalpost will be since it;s been established that his fre specch wasn't being protected more so as a failure on multiple public schools to protect their students from a clear threat. Back to "he didn't deserve to be hit?" and "advocating for rape is just an opinion"

 

[Rumblebones]

The call was twelve minutes long and there are several posts above you citing that no, his speech was not protected. Hold that L.

There's barely 10 minutes between your post where you claim you have a lawyer for a cousin and the post where you've posted after a 12 minute conversation with your cousin.

Even if she picked up straight away and the two of you got straight to it without exchanging any pleasantries or explanation on your part and she watched the whole video from start to finish - even then the time simply does not add up. You aren't being truthful.

At what point did I argue his speech was protected? Talk about taking Ls when you go as far as to lie in a thread lmao. It's the law equivalent of "my uncle who works at Nintendo told me" - hilarious.

 

[Lucky Seven]

Lol fuck him. Shouldn't there have been cops nearby?

 

[MUnited83]

I guess this is why people always scream "you're harassing me" at the slightest shove or raising of their voice lol

come back to reality dude

Yeah telling HIGH SCHOOL CHILDREN that they should be raped is "the slightest shove or raising of a voice"

What's your legal background?

Being able to read, and having studied the law of my country. It is pretty clear cut. Here he would go down for Sexual Harassment of Minors, Hate Speech, Indictment to Violence, Threats to phisical integrity and disorderly conduct. At the very least.

 

[mashoutposse]

I guess this is why people always scream "you're harassing me" at the slightest shove

?

Don't touch me.

 

[Two Words]

And?

You already know that I think absolutionism is garbage (the height of hubris, in fact). Contradictions in the letter of the law do not necessarily lead to internal moral contradictions. There is no hypocrisy in my stance.

Contradictions aren't only bad if you are some intense absolutionist. But whatever, I just hope you're never a part of any important jury trial. I'd never want somebody to decide the fate of somebody based on how they're personally feeling about the defendant on that particular day.

 

[marrec]

Contradictions aren't only bad if you are some intense absolutionist. But whatever, I just hope you're never a part of any important jury trial. I'd never want somebody to decide the fate of somebody based on how they're personally feeling about the defendant on that particular day.

Sometimes it's necessary to do the right thing, rather than the legal thing.

 

[gutter_trash]

I'm thankfull that Free Speech is more limited in Canada than in the US.

School crossing guards here in my town would have called the cops ASAP on that sex offender creep

 

[Yayate]

Contradictions aren't only bad if you are some intense absolutionist. But whatever, I just hope you're never a part of any important jury trial. I'd never want somebody to decide the fate of somebody based on how they're personally feeling about the defendant on that particular day.

You mean literally every juror?