woman arrested for F**k you decal on her truck

deno

deno

Well-Known Member
TacoMac said:
Incorrect.

For instance: If you pay to go see Lewis Black, you understand that you're going to hear adult language. It's a vulgar standup comedy routine and people expect that sort of language in an adult forum.

But people don't typically take a 12 year old to go see Lewis Black...mainly for that very reason.

But people drive down the road every single day. Kids are on the road every single day as well. They're going to and from school, to the store, to baseball practice, to ballet rehearsal and all other manner of things.

To throw profane, vulgar, adult language in the face of a child (or an adult that doesn't want to hear it in public) is against the law in every single jurisdiction there is. Full stop.

If you feel the need to be so vulgar in front of children in public, then you have some very serious, deep seeded personal problems that you need some serious professional help to resolve.

In the meantime, if the police cite you for disorderly conduct for hurling all kinds of offensive, vulgar, profane, adult words at children, then don't be the least bit surprised. Not everybody is a completely worthless, vulgar, child abusing knucklehead that wants to subject children to that sort of environment.

And there are, contrary to what your...whatever you call whatever raised you...think, there are adults out there that don't want to hear or see it either.

It's PUBLIC. If you can't conduct yourself as an adult in PUBLIC, then prepare to be cited.

That's all there is to it.
Click to expand...
Oh, BS. Any law that allows people in authority to take discretion is ripe for abuse. And this particular law is abused by people in power every day. I'll raise my own kids, and don't need you aor the government telling me how to do it. Your desire to control other people is fucked up. Mind your own business.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
TacoMac said:
Incorrect.

For instance: If you pay to go see Lewis Black, you understand that you're going to hear adult language. It's a vulgar standup comedy routine and people expect that sort of language in an adult forum.

But people don't typically take a 12 year old to go see Lewis Black...mainly for that very reason.

But people drive down the road every single day. Kids are on the road every single day as well. They're going to and from school, to the store, to baseball practice, to ballet rehearsal and all other manner of things.

To throw profane, vulgar, adult language in the face of a child (or an adult that doesn't want to hear it in public) is against the law in every single jurisdiction there is. Full stop.

If you feel the need to be so vulgar in front of children in public, then you have some very serious, deep seeded personal problems that you need some serious professional help to resolve.

In the meantime, if the police cite you for disorderly conduct for hurling all kinds of offensive, vulgar, profane, adult words at children, then don't be the least bit surprised. Not everybody is a completely worthless, vulgar, child abusing knucklehead that wants to subject children to that sort of environment.

And there are, contrary to what your...whatever you call whatever raised you...think, there are adults out there that don't want to hear or see it either.

It's PUBLIC. If you can't conduct yourself as an adult in PUBLIC, then prepare to be cited.

That's all there is to it.
Click to expand...
She was arrested for an unrelated outstanding warrant.

From the earlier statements by the police department they did want to talk to her about the bumper sticker anyway, probably meaning they wanted to let her know about the law that you just recited. Her earlier warrant made it easier for them.

There are some first amendment issues with trying to regulate the specific wording on that bumper sticker.

That said, I'm willing to bet this person was never asked to come in and talk to the police about the offensive language on the back of their car:
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
deno said:
Oh, BS. Any law that allows people in authority to take discretion is ripe for abuse. And this particular law is abused by people in power every day. I'll raise my own kids, and don't need you aor the government telling me how to do it. Your desire to control other people is fucked up. Mind your own business.
Click to expand...
 
Sir Napsalot

Sir Napsalot

Well-Known Member
TacoMac said:
Incorrect.

For instance: If you pay to go see Lewis Black, you understand that you're going to hear adult language. It's a vulgar standup comedy routine and people expect that sort of language in an adult forum.

But people don't typically take a 12 year old to go see Lewis Black...mainly for that very reason.

But people drive down the road every single day. Kids are on the road every single day as well. They're going to and from school, to the store, to baseball practice, to ballet rehearsal and all other manner of things.

To throw profane, vulgar, adult language in the face of a child (or an adult that doesn't want to hear it in public) is against the law in every single jurisdiction there is. Full stop.

If you feel the need to be so vulgar in front of children in public, then you have some very serious, deep seeded personal problems that you need some serious professional help to resolve.

In the meantime, if the police cite you for disorderly conduct for hurling all kinds of offensive, vulgar, profane, adult words at children, then don't be the least bit surprised. Not everybody is a completely worthless, vulgar, child abusing knucklehead that wants to subject children to that sort of environment.

And there are, contrary to what your...whatever you call whatever raised you...think, there are adults out there that don't want to hear or see it either.

It's PUBLIC. If you can't conduct yourself as an adult in PUBLIC, then prepare to be cited.

That's all there is to it.
Click to expand...
I think you missed his point entirely

The charge of "disorderly conduct" is unspecific and can be applied to pretty much any socially unacceptable behavior which isn't covered by a specific statute.
 
im4satori

im4satori

Well-Known Member
we are at a point in time where it has become extremely difficult almost impossible to distinguish truth from fiction

everything comes from the internet or from those whom are bought and paid for and you cant trust anything, the news station are almost all reporting there point of view or just giving there opinions based on information they've received second hand

its a joke on us

a person could research all day and still not know if what they've read was true, I don't care what the source

it pisses me off all these "news" media outlets that aren't actually doing anything other than repeating what the they heard from somewhere else like gossip and each time it gets repeated the story changes slightly depending on whos telling it

how will history record all of these lies, what will become recorded as truth and what will be forgotten
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
im4satori said:
we are at a point in time where it has become extremely difficult almost impossible to distinguish truth from fiction

everything comes from the internet or from those whom are bought and paid for and you cant trust anything, the news station are almost all reporting there point of view or just giving there opinions based on information they've received second hand

its a joke on us

a person could research all day and still not know if what they've read was true, I don't care what the source

it pisses me off all these "news" media outlets that aren't actually doing anything other than repeating what the they heard from somewhere else like gossip and each time it gets repeated the story changes slightly depending on whos telling it

how will history record all of these lies, what will become recorded as truth and what will be forgotten
Click to expand...
Conspiracy theories are a rabbit hole some people never return from. Fake news can be spotted.

The arrest of the woman on charges unrelated to that bumper sticker is not fake news. Totally agree that if not for that bumper sticker and the hubub it caused, she wouldn't have been arrested.

But first, I find this article put out by politifact yseful. It contains a list of ways to check the veracity of an article. This isn't rocket science or even very difficult, unless you want to believe the fake news or false conspiracy theory,

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/11/how-to-spot-fake-news/

The other side of the story is interesting. She didn't know there were fraud charges against her. There could be retaliation and fraud on the part of the police. It wouldn't be the first time. But it's not a fake conspiracy theory, just a story that is developing.

Owner of Truck with Anti-Trump Sticker Believes Arrest on Unrelated Charges Was Retaliation
https://www.sacurrent.com/the-daily/archives/2017/11/17/owner-of-truck-with-anti-trump-sticker-believes-arrest-on-unrelated-charges-was-retaliation
After Fonseca fessed up, local authorities took a look at her record. Turns out, she had an existing warrant for fraud charges (which she was unaware of) and was taken into custody Thursday. She was released on a $1,500 bond about four hours later. Still, Fonseca later told the Houston's KPRC 2 that she believes the arrest was in retaliation for the sticker.

Nehls' initial threat of disorderly conduct probably wouldn't have stuck anyway. After posting his Facebook photo, Fort Bend County District Attorney John Healey told KPRC 2 that he would not have accepted charges for disorderly conduct, which Nehls' Facebook post said the local prosecutor was hoping for.

Myself, I believe the woman who said the arrest was in retaliation for the bumper sticker. I don't know about the fraud charges and whether they are fake or not. We'll see.The woman and her family are going to be put through hell and I do think this is just the beginning of repressive crackdown on insults to the pussygrabber in chief.


Regarding the DA's opinion on the original threat to arrest for foul language, seems he disagrees with our resident Phd and self proclaimed know it all in criminal matters:

Nehls' initial threat of disorderly conduct probably wouldn't have stuck anyway. After posting his Facebook photo, Fort Bend County District Attorney John Healey told KPRC 2 that he would not have accepted charges for disorderly conduct, which Nehls' Facebook post said the local prosecutor was hoping for.
 
Last edited:
TacoMac

TacoMac

Well-Known Member
Sir Napsalot said:
I think you missed his point entirely

The charge of "disorderly conduct" is unspecific and can be applied to pretty much any socially unacceptable behavior which isn't covered by a specific statute.
Click to expand...
Again, incorrect. It is VERY specific. It is CLEARLY defined. People simply choose to ignore the law completely. It covers all aspects of human behavior in public, not just the spoken word.

Your (and his) definition of how to behave in public is simply "Do anything on earth you want to because it's your right".

Thankfully, the law doesn't work that way. At all. It's a sad fact that most people are pigs. They're filthy, disgusting, have no class, rude, obnoxious and more. That's why the law on how to behave in public is so very extensive - because people like to believe that they're special and are exempt from anything resembling manners.

Here is the Gwinnett County Statue of Disorderly Conduct in its entirety. This law exist because people, in general, are completely worthless as I've stated before. This thread is living proof of it.

§ 74-4. Disorderly conduct

(a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to preserve the peace and tranquility when it is endangered by the irresponsible actions of a person or persons.

(b) Definitions. The terms "alcoholic beverage" and "retail consumption dealer" shall have the same meaning as found in section 6-2 of this Code. Other terms shall have the same meaning as found in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (see O.C.G.A. §§ 16-1-3, 16-6-2, 16-6-9). For the purposes of this section only, "public place" shall include the jails, penal and correctional institutes of this county.

(c) Prohibited acts.
  • (1) No person, including the patron of a business, shall possess and give the appearance of consuming any type of alcoholic beverage on the premises of a business that is not licensed as a retail consumption dealer. This prohibition extends to shopping center parking lots, fast food establishments and any other places of business.

    (2) No person shall engage in any noisy, boisterous or unruly conduct that disturbs or infringes upon the peace of another, particularly at an hour or time which is not common for such activity.

    (3) No person shall jostle, roughly crowd or push any person in a public place.

    (4) No person or persons shall willfully refuse the request or command of a duly authorized law enforcement officer to summon help or assistance, via telephone or police radio or whatever means of communication may be readily available where such refusal could result in injury to any person or damage to any property.

    (5) No person shall intentionally interfere with another's lawful attempt to summon police assistance through the use of telephone, radio, or other communication device.

    (6) No person shall intentionally urinate or defecate while in a public place other than a public restroom.

    (7) No person shall be and appear in an intoxicated condition in any public place or within the curtilage of any private residence not his own other than by invitation of the owner or lawful occupant, which condition is made manifest by boisterousness, by indecent condition or act, or by vulgar, profane, loud or unbecoming language.

    (8) No person shall recklessly or knowingly commit any act which may reasonably be expected to prevent or disrupt a lawful meeting, gathering, or procession.

    (9) No person shall act in a violent or tumultuous manner toward another person whereby such person is placed in reasonable fear of the safety of such person's life, limb or health.

    (10) No person shall act in a violent or tumultuous manner toward another person whereby the property of such person is placed in danger of being damaged or destroyed.

    (11) No person shall, without provocation, use to or of another person in such other person's presence, opprobrious or abusive words which by their very utterance tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace, that is to say, words which as a matter of common knowledge and under ordinary circumstances will, when used to or of another person in such other person's presence, naturally tend to provoke violent resentment, that is, words commonly called fighting words.

    (12) No person shall, without provocation, use obscene and vulgar or profane language in the presence of or by telephone to a person under the age of 14 years which threatens an immediate breach of the peace.

    (13) No person shall commit any of the following acts in a public place:

    a. An act or a simulated act of sexual intercourse or sodomy;

    b. A lewd exposure or indecent fondling of the sexual organs;

    c. A lewd caress or indecent fondling of the body of another person; or

    d. A lewd appearance in a state of partial or complete nudity.

    (14) No person shall enter or remain upon the private recreational facilities of another, without the consent of the owner, or such person authorized to give such consent, for the purpose of utilizing such recreational facilities which are normally reserved for the residents or employees of any residential neighborhood, apartment complex, business or association.

    (15) No person shall without authority cross any type of barrier or barrier tape erected by any police, fire or other public official for the purpose of excluding the public from the scene of any incident or emergency.

    (16) No person shall refuse to disperse when requested to do so by a law enforcement officer at the scene of any incident, emergency or other occurrence where the public safety and order are threatened.

    Any singular or combined presence of the acts enumerated in this subsection may constitute a violation of this section.

    Authority for incorporating certain sections from the Official Code of Georgia Annotated is contained in the criminal code which specifically authorizes municipalities to implement ordinances that proscribe the described conduct. (See O.C.G.A. §§ 16-11-36(d), 16-6-24, 16-11-39(c), 16-11-41(b), 16-11-34(b)).

    (d) Penalty for violation of section. Any person found guilty of violating this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than $200.00, by imprisonment in the county jail not in excess of 60 days, or both.
Click to expand...
 
dandyrandy

dandyrandy

Well-Known Member
TacoMac said:
Again, incorrect. It is VERY specific. It is CLEARLY defined. People simply choose to ignore the law completely. It covers all aspects of human behavior in public, not just the spoken word.

Your (and his) definition of how to behave in public is simply "Do anything on earth you want to because it's your right".

Thankfully, the law doesn't work that way. At all. It's a sad fact that most people are pigs. They're filthy, disgusting, have no class, rude, obnoxious and more. That's why the law on how to behave in public is so very extensive - because people like to believe that they're special and are exempt from anything resembling manners.

Here is the Gwinnett County Statue of Disorderly Conduct in its entirety. This law exist because people, in general, are completely worthless as I've stated before. This thread is living proof of it.
Click to expand...
Are you a popo?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top