|
On June 08 2008 18:35 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2008 18:30 -orb- wrote:On June 08 2008 18:01 Jibba wrote: By 'spitting in public' he meant 'spitting in the eyeball of a police officer.' Apparently Haemonculus is the Fox News of TL. Relax. To be honest, while spitting in the eye of a policman is definitely aggressive and is going to receive punishment, to me it really doesn't seem like that big of a difference from the original statement of spitting in public with aids. Yeah, it's "assault," but in terms of receiving aids, give me a break. You're not going to get aids from someone spitting in your eye. 35 years for something like that is completely absurd. The over criminalization in this country is absurd. Whether you have AIDS or cooties or nothing at all, there's a huge, huge, huge difference between "spitting in public" and "spitting in the eye of a police officer." How about "I fired my gun in the air" and "I tried to blow that judge's head off." It was a bit excessive, but the chance is there. The guy was a career drunk loser, so his mouth is probably infested with all sorts of diseases, including gingivitis. yeah, so he deserves a lifelong sentence. its so beyond me
|
The American legal system has once again proven that it is one of the most ridiculous in existence (at least in the western hemisphere). As a law student, I get to hear so many exhilarating stories and our profs constantly mock the anglo-american legal system. I think they do rightly so.
|
On June 08 2008 18:53 d1v wrote: The American legal system has once again proven that it is one of the most ridiculous in existence (at least in the western hemisphere). As a law student, I get to hear so many exhilarating stories and our profs constantly mock the anglo-american legal system. I think they do rightly so.
The perfect ongoing example is how we imprison people for possession of marijuana... I mean give me a fuckin break.
|
On June 08 2008 13:25 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2008 13:07 Falcynn wrote: Yeah, as much as it makes me happy to see him getting 10 years...I still have to admit that's a bit harsh. A man in Texas was recently sentenced to 35 years for spitting in public because he had AIDS.
that was absolutely right IMO. people with AIDS should be separated and marked (big tatoo on the forehead?), like in the past people with leprosy
this is harsh, but probably the only way to stop the pandemic
that guy was a bit of a scapegoat, to show others people with aids, that they cant abuse their sickness.
|
does no one know of the real meaning of cross burning?
In Scotland the "fiery cross", known as the Crann Tara, was used as a declaration of war. The sight of it commanded all clan members to rally to the defense of the area. (stolen from wiki)
obviously the man and his friend were using this to declare some sort of blood feud with the woman's family. the pictures were just to send to fellow clan mates so they would be notified of the feud.
on a more serious note that is extremely messed up ...
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 08 2008 18:57 -orb- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2008 18:53 d1v wrote: The American legal system has once again proven that it is one of the most ridiculous in existence (at least in the western hemisphere). As a law student, I get to hear so many exhilarating stories and our profs constantly mock the anglo-american legal system. I think they do rightly so. The perfect ongoing example is how we imprison people for possession of marijuana... I mean give me a fuckin break. Yeah, anyone walking around with a pound of pot should be let off case closed. Oh, you must mean how we imprison people for carrying a dime bag, because yeah, we don't actually do that. Pot possession under 1oz is a misdemeanor in most states and will likely just get you a fine or slap on the wrist. The deep south is the only place you need to worry and even then it's maximum 30 days.
Oh, and our "backwards law system" generally doesn't treat marijuana possession much differently than most European countries, and is actually more tolerant than countries like France, Sweden and Japan.
And for the record, I think the 'War on Drugs' is idiotic policy, but crying because you're a pothead who doesn't understand US drug laws is even more idiotic.
|
Shut up, you have no idea who I am.
I've never smoked pot in my life, so don't tell me I'm crying because I'm a pothead who doesn't understand US drug laws.
alt>qq plz
|
On June 08 2008 19:40 8882 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2008 13:25 Haemonculus wrote:On June 08 2008 13:07 Falcynn wrote: Yeah, as much as it makes me happy to see him getting 10 years...I still have to admit that's a bit harsh. A man in Texas was recently sentenced to 35 years for spitting in public because he had AIDS. that was absolutely right IMO. people with AIDS should be separated and marked (big tatoo on the forehead?), like in the past people with leprosy this is harsh, but probably the only way to stop the pandemic that guy was a bit of a scapegoat, to show others people with aids, that they cant abuse their sickness. Maybe I have the romanian syndrome here, but if its irony, its pretty hard to detect...
|
On June 08 2008 18:29 Frits wrote: Hate crimes are the most retarded thing to ever exist. I guess all other crimes are done out of friendliness.
10 years for burning a cross... not that I feel any sympathy for the retard but how is that justice. It's just what they call it lol... Don't worry about the semantics so much
Laws don't exist to uphold justice, they exist to keep people safe. It's 10 years for trying to start a white supremacist anti-black movement. That's a lot more serious than you might realise. If you don't understand that, try to imagine someone writing swastikas all over a Jewish person's house, proclaiming themselves Nazi youth, and maybe burning something on the property for shits and giggles. That's the equivalent so far as I can tell, and if you don't understand that either, there's nothing I can do but call you a fool.
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 08 2008 20:31 -orb- wrote: Shut up, you have no idea who I am.
I've never smoked pot in my life, so don't tell me I'm crying because I'm a pothead who doesn't understand US drug laws.
alt>qq plz So are you going to edit your totally incorrect earlier post or try and clarify and substantiate it with more information or should I just go ahead and assume you're admitting you don't know what you're talking about?
|
What is in this thread that China doesn't like? I can't view the first two pages but can view the third one for some reason.
|
ya all you people saying its a harsh sentence really need a wakeup call. The burning cross isnt just a message saying "get out". It represents a threat, the treat of lynching and murder. Did the guy try to kill the family? no. But what is the jail time for a bomb threat or pointing a gun at an innocent person? The cross imo is much more severe because it invokes the possibility that the guy is willing do harm to the family. And whoever brought up pot...fucking moron. These are 2 separate things. Its not like the guy burned a cross in his backyard cause he thought it looked cool or something. If you knew anything youd know that in the past they burned crosses on peoples lawns prior to killing and burning them due to their race.
ps you people are fucking pathetic. I am so sick of your childish and idiot posts. w/e ban me. morons.
|
Just thought I'd throw in a few legal clarifications on some of these cases brought up.
I was in school studying aspects of the legal system when a case come up in Virginia, well, two cases that had been combined into one to be heard by the Supreme Court. In one, two idiots burned a cross on a black family's front lawn. In the other, a local Klan leader got a big ol' jamboree together on his farm and burned a 30-40 foot high cross about a hundred yards off of the highway but it could be seen for miles around. Both were arrested and found guilty of, more or less, intention to commit and threatening violence under a Virginia law that forebade the use of burning crosses as "free speech" as they showed a direct threat on life and a clear and present danger. The Supreme Court upheld the law banning cross burning as a form of speech not protected by the Constitution because cross burning, unlike flag burning and the like, has a history of surrounded by violence and the meaning is never one of protest or speech but of fear and hatred.
That said, 10 years is a light sentence. In Virginia it was up to 15 for awhile, maybe that has changed. Cross burning is not justified, the ACLU even gave up trying to defend it. These guys protected Communists during the Cold War and they just threw up their hands after this ruling. I was born and raised in the South and cross burning is never friendly but it is no longer a hate crime, it is now viewed legally as an unmistakable threat of violence, so white, black, blue people all have the same protection against it, and that kind of speech is definitively not protected by our legal system.
As far as the guy who got jail time for spitting in public with AIDS, if he spat on someone, I'd believe that story might be true as willingly and knowingly giving someone HIV is now a crime.
And for the black kid who got put in jail for punching the white kid under "attempted murder." That case is known as the Jenna 6. Look it up, it's a travesty of justice. The Supreme Court appeal is supposed to come up this year (?? not positive on that).
Some food for thought.
Oh, and stack is pretty much dead on in his argument, from a legal perspective.
|
uh oh chinese firewall sensitive keyword hunt
|
hey guys, did you know burning a cross is symbolic? just wanted to make sure you got it after the first 30 posts saying it.
|
On June 08 2008 23:31 Gene wrote: hey guys, did you know burning a cross is symbolic? just wanted to make sure you got it after the first 30 posts saying it. oh thanks, like any other pothead here i thought it was burned because it glows so pretty.
|
On June 08 2008 19:40 8882 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2008 13:25 Haemonculus wrote:On June 08 2008 13:07 Falcynn wrote: Yeah, as much as it makes me happy to see him getting 10 years...I still have to admit that's a bit harsh. A man in Texas was recently sentenced to 35 years for spitting in public because he had AIDS. that was absolutely right IMO. people with AIDS should be separated and marked (big tatoo on the forehead?), like in the past people with leprosy this is harsh, but probably the only way to stop the pandemic that guy was a bit of a scapegoat, to show others people with aids, that they cant abuse their sickness. The chance of afflicting someone with aids through spitting at someone is so small that you could as well charge a man trying to delay police officers in the sun for intentionally trying to give them skin cancer.
Blood and a needle, otherwise the risk of getting the virus is extremely small. In fact anything but blood and needle have very small chance of transmitting HIV, even sex.(Chance from sex is roughly 1/1000, then imagine the chance of it in a small piece of spit with a very short contact time)
|
On June 08 2008 23:19 oneCrash wrote:
And for the black kid who got put in jail for punching the white kid under "attempted murder." That case is known as the Jenna 6. Look it up, it's a travesty of justice. The Supreme Court appeal is supposed to come up this year (?? not positive on that).
Some food for thought.
Oh, and stack is pretty much dead on in his argument, from a legal perspective.
This was one of the most recent travesties in the American legal system. I was very pissed however that this incident wasn't even recognized until about 1 year later by the media, and the band wagoning on this case was ridiculous.
I missed how Drug Laws and Cross Burning fit in the same category, at least choose something else related to the first amendment to argue :/ (Granted I believe pot should be legalized, this thread is not for that discussion)
|
On June 09 2008 00:40 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2008 19:40 8882 wrote:On June 08 2008 13:25 Haemonculus wrote:On June 08 2008 13:07 Falcynn wrote: Yeah, as much as it makes me happy to see him getting 10 years...I still have to admit that's a bit harsh. A man in Texas was recently sentenced to 35 years for spitting in public because he had AIDS. that was absolutely right IMO. people with AIDS should be separated and marked (big tatoo on the forehead?), like in the past people with leprosy this is harsh, but probably the only way to stop the pandemic that guy was a bit of a scapegoat, to show others people with aids, that they cant abuse their sickness. The chance of afflicting someone with aids through spitting at someone is so small that you could as well charge a man trying to delay police officers in the sun for intentionally trying to give them skin cancer. Blood and a needle, otherwise the risk of getting the virus is extremely small. In fact anything but blood and needle have very small chance of transmitting HIV, even sex.(Chance from sex is roughly 1/1000, then imagine the chance of it in a small piece of spit with a very short contact time)
take the risks if you want. some people prefer to be safe. have you ever heard of murphy's laws?
is the 1/1000 number even true? any sources for it? I always thought it was more like 1/6. we could play russian roulette if you want..
|
form german wikipedia: "Die HIV-Konzentration in Tränen, Schweiß und Speichel reicht für eine Ansteckung nach heutigem Erkenntnisstand ebenfalls nicht aus"
roughly: The concentration of hiv in tears, sweat and saliva does, from the present level of knowledge, not suffice to infect someone[..
edit: and form engl. wikipedia: "HIV has been found at low concentrations in the saliva, tears and urine of infected individuals, but there are no recorded cases of infection by these secretions and the potential risk of transmission is negligible.[24] "
|
|
|
|