Meanwhile, a serial rapist is on the loose and may strike again at any minute. But we don't have time to deal with that, THERE COULD BE MORE VEGETABLE GARDENS WE NEED TO DEAL WITH!
OH THE HORROR! Some lady planted a vegetable garden on her front lawn! She should get the electric chair for her hideous crime!
Meanwhile, a serial rapist is on the loose and may strike again at any minute. But we don't have time to deal with that, THERE COULD BE MORE VEGETABLE GARDENS WE NEED TO DEAL WITH!
+1
Article
As stupid as I think it is to forbid front yard gardens, if she gets jail time it will be entirely her own fault. She was warned, then cited, THEN arrested. She had two chances to comply with the idiots coming down on her and she decided free veggies in the front yard was worth the risk. Both sides are stupid.
I'd say that if our legal system means anything at all then she won't get a minutes of jail time, but then again I don't want to put too much faith in our legal system. It does, after all, still say that I can't marry my boyfriend, so it's kind of hard to take it too seriously a lot of the time...
Article
As stupid as I think it is to forbid front yard gardens, if she gets jail time it will be entirely her own fault. She was warned, then cited, THEN arrested. She had two chances to comply with the idiots coming down on her and she decided free veggies in the front yard was worth the risk. Both sides are stupid.
The law is extremely vague. There is nothing about it that specifically forbids vegetable gardens and she has every reason to expect that she will win in court. And then she can sue for wrongful arrest.
I have to disagree, Max. It's stupid to not do something just because you get told not to when there's really no good reason not to do it.
Jail seems like a good reason to me.
The way I understand the situation, the law in question doesn't really apply or could easily enough be understood as not really applying, which is a good enough reason for the case against her to be dismissed if the law isn't clear enough that she really couldn't know she was doing anything illegal.
1) She was TOLD she was doing something illegal, so she could know just fine.
2) If the law is somewhat vague, then her lawyer will be the one to try and persuade a jury of that. Since she likely cannot afford an attorney and public defenders are worthless, she's a fool for defying the law.
If I were in her shoes and got a notice saying that I was doing something illegal, I'd look it up and say "What? No, I'm not. They're clearly mistaken." and then go about my business as usual.
This is why lawyers laugh at people. But hey, if you feel that your 20 minutes of research is greater than the entirety of law school, go for it. You'll likely end up in the same spot she is in sooner or later.
Article
As stupid as I think it is to forbid front yard gardens, if she gets jail time it will be entirely her own fault. She was warned, then cited, THEN arrested. She had two chances to comply with the idiots coming down on her and she decided free veggies in the front yard was worth the risk. Both sides are stupid.
The law is extremely vague. There is nothing about it that specifically forbids vegetable gardens and she has every reason to expect that she will win in court. And then she can sue for wrongful arrest.
No she can't, or at least she'll almost certainly lose a wrongful arrest lawsuit. If the law is so vague and the police believed that they were doing the right thing with regard to the law, then they are fine.
In the United States and other jurisdictions, police officers and other government officials are shielded from false arrest lawsuits through a process known as qualified immunity. This doctrine protects such officials from liability when engaged in discretionary actions such as arrests of suspects. However, the officer's actions must still not violate "clearly established law," or this protection is void. This includes executing an arrest warrant against the wrong person.
As you can see, they were not going against a clearly established law.
In the United States and other jurisdictions, police officers and other government officials are shielded from false arrest lawsuits through a process known as qualified immunity. This doctrine protects such officials from liability when engaged in discretionary actions such as arrests of suspects. However, the officer's actions must still not violate "clearly established law," or this protection is void. This includes executing an arrest warrant against the wrong person.
As you can see, they were not going against a clearly established law.
Cities are not "officials". She may not be able to sue any particular official, but she can still sue the city, and probably win.
But I think it got modded...
Hmmmmmmmmm...
Wonder why this thread hasn't?
Some people are more likeable than you and me. They can say the exact same thing as one of us; nothing happens. We say it however and it's banhammer time.
QFT.
EDIT: This isn't to say that you aren't being stalked, just speaking about this instance.
Snitching is the silent killer.
QFT
Actually, your thread about this is just on the 2nd page. Not modded (though it did take a different direction of discussion which might be inflammatory, what with the unrelated-to-topic racial component that developed), just fell off the front page.
EDIT: This isn't to say that you aren't being stalked, just speaking about this instance.
Ah, I didn't know that... I just assumed it was locked/deleted... what with the antics lately...
Thanks!
Jail seems like a good reason to me.
It's not.
1) She was TOLD she was doing something illegal, so she could know just fine.
Do you believe everything that you're told? I got told the other day that your hair and fingernails keep growing some time after you die, and I thought "That sounds stupid. I don't believe you.", so I looked it up, and I was right, so I went back and corrected the person who tried to give me the incorrect information.
Do you believe everything that you're told?
I believe the children are our future. Teach them well and let them lead the way.
Do you believe everything that you're told?
I believe the children are our future. Teach them well and let them lead the way.
Liar
Jail seems like a good reason to me.
It's not.
Enjoy jail when you end up there.
1) Do you believe everything that you're told? I got told the other day that your hair and fingernails keep growing some time after you die, and I thought "That sounds stupid. I don't believe you.", so I looked it up, and I was right, so I went back and corrected the person who tried to give me the incorrect information.
When you get told by the LAW that you are breaking the LAW, it's best to believe. Otherwise, enjoy jail when you get there.
Jail seems like a good reason to me.
It's not.
You must be a politician.
When you get told by the LAW that you are breaking the LAW, it's best to believe.
She didn't get told by "the LAW". She got told by people. People are frequently mistaken about the law, even people who supposedly represent it.
I have to disagree, Max. It's stupid to not do something just because you get told not to when there's really no good reason not to do it. The way I understand the situation, the law in question doesn't really apply or could easily enough be understood as not really applying, which is a good enough reason for the case against her to be dismissed if the law isn't clear enough that she really couldn't know she was doing anything illegal. If I were in her shoes and got a notice saying that I was doing something illegal, I'd look it up and say "What? No, I'm not. They're clearly mistaken." and then go about my business as usual.
I'd say that if our legal system means anything at all then she won't get a minutes of jail time, but then again I don't want to put too much faith in our legal system. It does, after all, still say that I can't marry my boyfriend, so it's kind of hard to take it too seriously a lot of the time...
My issues with marriage aside, its actually not legal for the Feds to implement laws that deal with this kind of thing, as they are explicitly limited to regulation things that the constitution explicity states such as imports, and disputes between states and other stuff. I bet if they strictly went by the constitution half our current federal laws would be thrown out...
I posted this story days ago...
But I think it got modded...
Hmmmmmmmmm...
Wonder why this thread hasn't?
I haven't posted yet... wait for it... wait for it.... now!
Article
As stupid as I think it is to forbid front yard gardens, if she gets jail time it will be entirely her own fault. She was warned, then cited, THEN arrested. She had two chances to comply with the idiots coming down on her and she decided free veggies in the front yard was worth the risk. Both sides are stupid.
The law is extremely vague. There is nothing about it that specifically forbids vegetable gardens and she has every reason to expect that she will win in court. And then she can sue for wrongful arrest.
I agree that the law is quite vague. It doesn't specifically forbid them but it also doesn't specifically allow them either. Or rather a garden like the one she set up which to me is quite a tacky way of setting up a garden especially for a front yard.
And wow 3 months in jail. It's not like it's horrible and some counties/states have things you can do where you can spend half that time in jail if you pay extra cash per visit. Oh they also have deals where you don't need to spend all the time in there at once. Like you can just spend weekends in jail for a year or whatnot. And again it's just jail. It's not like she's being tossed in prison or put on death row.
Yes the law is very vague but as it was interpreted she did break it so she must pay the price. Her fighting against it is the right thing to do if you want it changed, which in this case would be by changing the interpretation of the law making a more or less more official listing of what's allowed by more specific interpretations of the law.
I agree that the law is quite vague. It doesn't specifically forbid them but it also doesn't specifically allow them either. Or rather a garden like the one she set up which to me is quite a tacky way of setting up a garden especially for a front yard.
And wow 3 months in jail. It's not like it's horrible and some counties/states have things you can do where you can spend half that time in jail if you pay extra cash per visit. Oh they also have deals where you don't need to spend all the time in there at once. Like you can just spend weekends in jail for a year or whatnot. And again it's just jail. It's not like she's being tossed in prison or put on death row.
All true,but still, going to jail for a garden...
A bit over the top don't you think? At most, she should be paying a fine.
Yes the law is very vague but as it was interpreted she did break it so she must pay the price. Her fighting against it is the right thing to do if you want it changed, which in this case would be by changing the interpretation of the law making a more or less more official listing of what's allowed by more specific interpretations of the law.
Yup... as it was interpreted is the problem. THere are plenty of laws that are written vaguely so as to allow for more flexibility in enforcing it. And yes, fighting it is pretty much the only way to get it changed. I'm not sure if Florida still has a sodomy law or a law prohibiting infidelity, but a fe years ago, an out of state couple came to Miami with the express intent of challenging the laws to get them changed. The guy was married. The woman he came with was not his wife. They rented a hotel, had sex (broke several "laws") and then went to the cops and turned themselves in. They wanted to try it in court so as to get the law changed, but the judge dismissed the charges. So I'm not sure if there are still laws regarding what they did, but at least they tried to change it.
Section 302.4 Weeds: All premises and exterior property shall be maintained free from weeds or plant growth in excess of eight inches (254mm). All noxious weeds shall be prohibited. Weeds shall be defined as all grasses, annual plants and vegetation, other than trees or shrubs; provided, however, this term shall not include cultivated flowers and gardens.
or maybe this one
Improved property. No person owning any premises, whether or not occupied, and any person occupying any property (pursuant to any land contract, rental or leasehold agreement), including, for the purpose of this article, the abutting street right-of-way and the street curb, or the drainage course paralleling the street where there is no curb abutting such property, shall permit or maintain on any such property or premises any growth of weeds, rank vegetation or any growth of grass to a greater height than eight inches, or any accumulation of dead weeds, grass or brush. No such occupant or owner shall cause, suffer or permit poison ivy, poison oak or poison sumac, ragweed or other poisonous plants, or plants detrimental to health, to grow on any such premises or property.
That's all I could find at this time. If anyone knows what specific ordinance she supposedly violated, feel free to link it.
When you get told by the LAW that you are breaking the LAW, it's best to believe. Otherwise, enjoy jail when you get there.
Of course, if you're not breaking the law, why do you have to believe the ****tards who tell you that you are? I used to have a very nice letter from the Chief of Police of the city of Tustin, CA telling me that I had not, in fact, been arrested. Of course, this was two months after I'd heard the words "You're under arrest..." out of the mouth of a member of the Tustin PD. And less than a month after the DA declined to press charges due to a "lack of evidence". Of course, the only evidence they had to take me into custody in the first place was the fact that some woman cop had a "suspicion" that I was on meth. The blood test they took at the police station showed I wasn't.
I agree that the law is quite vague. It doesn't specifically forbid them but it also doesn't specifically allow them either. Or rather a garden like the one she set up which to me is quite a tacky way of setting up a garden especially for a front yard.
And wow 3 months in jail. It's not like it's horrible and some counties/states have things you can do where you can spend half that time in jail if you pay extra cash per visit. Oh they also have deals where you don't need to spend all the time in there at once. Like you can just spend weekends in jail for a year or whatnot. And again it's just jail. It's not like she's being tossed in prison or put on death row.
All true,but still, going to jail for a garden...
A bit over the top don't you think? At most, she should be paying a fine.
Whether or not it's rediculous has nothing to do with the fact that she broke the law. The rediculous factor comes in during this second part where she's chalanging that part. If she can get it changed then good for her. If she can't then oh well. She has to live with her oh so horrible jail time for BREAKING THE LAW. And I wouldn't be surprised if her local area has something where she can spend almost no time in jail if she doses out the cash.
Yes the law is very vague but as it was interpreted she did break it so she must pay the price. Her fighting against it is the right thing to do if you want it changed, which in this case would be by changing the interpretation of the law making a more or less more official listing of what's allowed by more specific interpretations of the law.
Yup... as it was interpreted is the problem. THere are plenty of laws that are written vaguely so as to allow for more flexibility in enforcing it. And yes, fighting it is pretty much the only way to get it changed. I'm not sure if Florida still has a sodomy law or a law prohibiting infidelity, but a fe years ago, an out of state couple came to Miami with the express intent of challenging the laws to get them changed. The guy was married. The woman he came with was not his wife. They rented a hotel, had sex (broke several "laws") and then went to the cops and turned themselves in. They wanted to try it in court so as to get the law changed, but the judge dismissed the charges. So I'm not sure if there are still laws regarding what they did, but at least they tried to change it.
I think the big problem with that case was that the two people went way the hell out of their way to purposefully break a law just to challenge it. That's a bit of an abuse of the system.... From my bit of studies it isn't supposed to work like that. And yeah I understand about it being vague and how that is causing problems. News Flash! Most laws are written like that for this exact reason! Well not so much as to cause problems but to be enforced over a much broader field. Yeah it's annoying but hey we elect this idiot law makers into office so *shrug*
I'm not sure how big bills are on county, city or state levels but on national levels they'll easily be a thousand or so pages long and our law makers never read them. There are a lot of problems with laws and law making. We pretty much have only a couple of choices to deal with it. Be smarter at electing people or do our best to challenge them when it effects us. Other than that if you break the law you break the law. ignorance of the law isn't an excuse. be prepared to pay the price. blah blah blah.
When you get told by the LAW that you are breaking the LAW, it's best to believe.
She didn't get told by "the LAW". She got told by people. People are frequently mistaken about the law, even people who supposedly represent it.
She got warned officially and CITED. You don't get cited by people. You get cited by the LAW.
You don't get cited by people. You get cited by the LAW.
I disagree.
"The LAW" can't do anything. It's an abstract concept. People do things.
You could always be an enforcement officer and then change your name to Law. I don't know if your boss would go for that, though.
That actually sounds pretty awesome. Wasn't there a G.I. Joe character that had a dog and their names were Law and Order? Also, Your boss should change their name to Boss. That would be... boss...
Whether or not it's rediculous has nothing to do with the fact that she broke the law. The rediculous factor comes in during this second part where she's chalanging that part. If she can get it changed then good for her. If she can't then oh well. She has to live with her oh so horrible jail time for BREAKING THE LAW. And I wouldn't be surprised if her local area has something where she can spend almost no time in jail if she doses out the cash.
Yes, but shouldn't the punishment fit the crime? It's a garden. Why send her to jail for growing a garden? A fine should be enough. The fine can be $100 or $10,000. What purpose does it serve sending her to jail? It's going to be more expensive to send her to jail.
I think the big problem with that case was that the two people went way the hell out of their way to purposefully break a law just to challenge it. That's a bit of an abuse of the system.... From my bit of studies it isn't supposed to work like that. And yeah I understand about it being vague and how that is causing problems.
To be fair, they were trying to get the laws off the books. The laws weren't being enforced which is probably why the judge dismissed the case. But the laws were still in there. I guess they wanted to have them removed in case some prosecutor somewhere decided to enforce them to make a point.
They had also one similar things in other states with varying degrees of success.
News Flash! Most laws are written like that for this exact reason! Well not so much as to cause problems but to be enforced over a much broader field. Yeah it's annoying but hey we elect this idiot law makers into office so *shrug*
That's the other problem. The people writing these laws are idiots. I can understand writing laws is a way to make them useful in a wide-range of situations, but there should be some limits written into the laws.
I'm not sure how big bills are on county, city or state levels but on national levels they'll easily be a thousand or so pages long and our law makers never read them. There are a lot of problems with laws and law making. We pretty much have only a couple of choices to deal with it. Be smarter at electing people or do our best to challenge them when it effects us. Other than that if you break the law you break the law. ignorance of the law isn't an excuse. be prepared to pay the price. blah blah blah.
True. Which is what this lady is doing. The law is affecting her, and she is challenging it.
'Excuse me, Chief Boss, but I'd like to change my name to Law.'
'Wouldn't that make you Officer Law, then?'
'Yes sir.'
'Then by all means.'
You could always be an enforcement officer and then change your name to Law. I don't know if your boss would go for that, though.
That reminds me of the novel Catch 22. There was a character in there that changed his first and last name to match his rank. He would have names like Private Private Private, Sergeant Sergeant Sergeant, and Captain Captain Captain.
'Excuse me, Chief Boss, but I'd like to change my name to Law.'
'Wouldn't that make you Officer Law, then?'
'Yes sir.'
'Then by all means.'
'Excuse me, Chief Boss, but I'd like to change my name to Law.'
'Wouldn't that make you Officer Law, then?'
'Yes sir.'
Now I want to change my name to Sir. The cubs would be all over me.
That reminds me of the novel Catch 22. There was a character in there that changed his first and last name to match his rank. He would have names like Private Private Private, Sergeant Sergeant Sergeant, and Captain Captain Captain.
Yossarian lives!
I remember that character being Major Major Major or something at some point. It's been a while since I've read any Heller. But damn, that cat could write.Now I want to change my name to Sir. The cubs would be all over me.
Do it!
Article
As stupid as I think it is to forbid front yard gardens, if she gets jail time it will be entirely her own fault. She was warned, then cited, THEN arrested. She had two chances to comply with the idiots coming down on her and she decided free veggies in the front yard was worth the risk. Both sides are stupid.
Ghandi says hi.
That reminds me of the novel Catch 22. There was a character in there that changed his first and last name to match his rank. He would have names like Private Private Private, Sergeant Sergeant Sergeant, and Captain Captain Captain.
Yossarian lives!
I loved that book. I should probably find a copy and re-read it. It was awesome. There is a part 2 to Catch 22. I may pick that up as well.
Article
As stupid as I think it is to forbid front yard gardens, if she gets jail time it will be entirely her own fault. She was warned, then cited, THEN arrested. She had two chances to comply with the idiots coming down on her and she decided free veggies in the front yard was worth the risk. Both sides are stupid.
Ghandi says hi.
I loved that book. I should probably find a copy and re-read it. It was awesome. There is a part 2 to Catch 22. I may pick that up as well.
I'm pretty sure I read that (I've read most of Heller's novels). It wasn't as good but still good. Good as Gold and God Knows are pretty good, too.
You could always be an enforcement officer and then change your name to Law. I don't know if your boss would go for that, though.
That actually sounds pretty awesome. Wasn't there a G.I. Joe character that had a dog and their names were Law and Order? Also, Your boss should change their name to Boss. That would be... boss...
That's ok "... chain of command is a chain I got in my room that I go get and beat you with until you recognize I'm in command..." Jane from Firefly
Article
As stupid as I think it is to forbid front yard gardens, if she gets jail time it will be entirely her own fault. She was warned, then cited, THEN arrested. She had two chances to comply with the idiots coming down on her and she decided free veggies in the front yard was worth the risk. Both sides are stupid.
Ghandi says hi.
Don't forget Martian Luther King Jr.
Challenging overreaching laws that take away freedoms is one of the ways you get rid of them.
Article
As stupid as I think it is to forbid front yard gardens, if she gets jail time it will be entirely her own fault. She was warned, then cited, THEN arrested. She had two chances to comply with the idiots coming down on her and she decided free veggies in the front yard was worth the risk. Both sides are stupid.
Ghandi says hi.
Hi.
Article
As stupid as I think it is to forbid front yard gardens, if she gets jail time it will be entirely her own fault. She was warned, then cited, THEN arrested. She had two chances to comply with the idiots coming down on her and she decided free veggies in the front yard was worth the risk. Both sides are stupid.
Ghandi says hi.
Don't forget Martian Luther King Jr.
Challenging overreaching laws that take away freedoms is one of the ways you get rid of them.
And a myriad of others who spent a great deal of time in prison for their efforts. I'm saying she is wrong to stand up for what she wants. I'm saying she asked for jail by doing it.
Don't forget Martian Luther King Jr.
That is racist, sir! Racist! How dare you insult the hero of the civil rights movement in such a manner! For that, I must report you! After all, it's my duty.
Show
I'm not even close to serious.
I'm not even close to serious.
And a myriad of others who spent a great deal of time in prison for their efforts. I'm saying she is wrong to stand up for what she wants. I'm saying she asked for jail by doing it.
Do you mean to have a "not" in the second sentence? If so then I agree with you on this whole thing.
She broke the law so deserves punishment. If she things the law is dumb and justifiably so then she should challenge it to either change the punishment or the the law overridden or whatnot. However, the law being vague or dumb (or however someone might want to see it) as of right now doesn't change the fact that she broke the law.
Yeah 90 days in jail might be a bit much but hey she broke the law. If she doesn't like it then either don't break it or she should do as she's doing and challenge it. And like I said before it's just some time in jail and much of it can probably be reduced by paying fees. It's not like it's a felony or prison time.
And a myriad of others who spent a great deal of time in prison for their efforts. I'm saying she is wrong to stand up for what she wants. I'm saying she asked for jail by doing it.
Do you mean to have a "not" in the second sentence? If so then I agree with you on this whole thing.
Yep. The "not" was supposed to be there.
This is why the Lawful third of the alignment grid is the most evil. It makes you say things suggesting that it's right to follow the law and wrong to break the law no matter what that law is. If a law is wrong, then no, you don't deserve to be punished for breaking it. Simply breaking a law is never sufficient grounds for being punished.
Laws are never, ever going to be changed by one person, so the first person or ten who break it will be punished. It takes a lot of people clamoring for the law to change for it to acually change. Until such time as that happens (or doesn't), a person SHOULD be punished for breaking that law.
And a myriad of others who spent a great deal of time in prison for their efforts. I'm saying she is wrong to stand up for what she wants. I'm saying she asked for jail by doing it.
Do you mean to have a "not" in the second sentence? If so then I agree with you on this whole thing.
Yep. The "not" was supposed to be there.
Are you sure it is the second sentence? Unless I'm misunderstanding your point, it works much better in the first sentence.
I'm not saying she is wrong to stand up for what she wants. I'm saying she asked for jail by doing it.
as opposed to
I'm saying she is wrong to stand up for what she wants. I'm not saying she asked for jail by doing it.
This is why the Lawful third of the alignment grid is the most evil. It makes you say things suggesting that it's right to follow the law and wrong to break the law no matter what that law is. If a law is wrong, then no, you don't deserve to be punished for breaking it. Simply breaking a law is never sufficient grounds for being punished.
How is a law judged as wrong? Laws you don't agree with? Laws that hamper what one wants to do?
If we get to pick and choose what "wrong" means and we're able to break "wrong" laws as we see fit without consiquences then there is no point to having any laws or rules to society because almost any and every law out there is found to be "wrong" or "stupid" or what have you by somebody.
I'm not saying someone needs to obay the law. Rather that they need to be aware and prepared of the consiquences of doing so. If they don't like that law once they've been found in violation of it then it's of their perogative to do what they legaly can to get the law changed in some shape, form or manner.
It just seems stupid to go about breaking laws just to be surprised at the fact that "OMG what there are punishments for breaking laws?!?! WTF?
"And a myriad of others who spent a great deal of time in prison for their efforts. I'm saying she is wrong to stand up for what she wants. I'm saying she asked for jail by doing it.
Do you mean to have a "not" in the second sentence? If so then I agree with you on this whole thing.
Yep. The "not" was supposed to be there.
Are you sure it is the second sentence? Unless I'm misunderstanding your point, it works much better in the first sentence.I'm not saying she is wrong to stand up for what she wants. I'm saying she asked for jail by doing it.
as opposed toI'm saying she is wrong to stand up for what she wants. I'm not saying she asked for jail by doing it.
If I'm not mistaken your first quote was the second sentence of your post. If it wasn't then I missread it when I made my comment.
How is a law judged as wrong?
Whether or not I agree with it. Duh.
Until such time as that happens (or doesn't), a person SHOULD be punished for breaking that law.
I think that our disagreement comes from the fact that you're viewing punishment as something that should be enacted when somebody breaks the law. I disagree. I view punishment as something that should be enacted when somebody does something wrong. While laws attempt to approximate this, they're often not that great at it, and so it's often illegal to do something that isn't wrong or legal to do something that is wrong. In such cases, I think that the person that did something wrong is the one that should be punished, not the person that did something illegal.
And a myriad of others who spent a great deal of time in prison for their efforts. I'm saying she is wrong to stand up for what she wants. I'm saying she asked for jail by doing it.
Are you sure it is the second sentence? Unless I'm misunderstanding your point, it works much better in the first sentence.
Read the post again, Squirrel. You deleted the first sentence in your quote. That would put the "not" in the second sentence.
If I'm not mistaken your first quote was the second sentence of your post. If it wasn't then I missread it when I made my comment.
You are correct. I ignored the first sentence.
To my knowledge, we still don't know what ordinance she supposedly violated. The only ones I could find that are pertinent to this case are ones she's clearly not in violation of.
Those two listed were both ones she could be in violation of. While they say weeds, they ALSO say as a separate thing, vegetation higher than 8 inches, which MANY garden plants exceed.
And a myriad of others who spent a great deal of time in prison for their efforts. I'm saying she is wrong to stand up for what she wants. I'm saying she asked for jail by doing it.
Do you mean to have a "not" in the second sentence? If so then I agree with you on this whole thing.
Yep. The "not" was supposed to be there.
Are you sure it is the second sentence? Unless I'm misunderstanding your point, it works much better in the first sentence.I'm not saying she is wrong to stand up for what she wants. I'm saying she asked for jail by doing it.
as opposed toI'm saying she is wrong to stand up for what she wants. I'm not saying she asked for jail by doing it.
Er, look closer. Those were the 2nd and 3rd sentences ;)
I think that our disagreement comes from the fact that you're viewing punishment as something that should be enacted when somebody breaks the law. I disagree.
Then we should not have laws.
Cop: "Your honor, Sam is accused of shooting Billy in the head in front of 10000 people."
Judge: "Oh, well. We can't do anything yet since he JUST broke the law."
Laws are made for a reason. Sometimes they are silly or bad reasons, but they are reasons none the less. To keep people obeying the laws, punishments are enacted for those who break them. It's not for you or I to try and stop that part of the equation. Nor is it for a small minority to change them. She broke the law and should have the book thrown at her until such time as she is found not guilty, has the charges dropped for whatever reason, is sent to jail, or the law is changed. It's that simple and to do otherwise is to jeapardize civilization by removing the teeth from the laws.
I view punishment as something that should be enacted when somebody does something wrong.
That's for the jury to decide.
While laws attempt to approximate this, they're often not that great at it, and so it's often illegal to do something that isn't wrong or legal to do something that is wrong. In such cases, I think that the person that did something wrong is the one that should be punished, not the person that did something illegal.
And that is for lawmakers to decide. If you want to change things, or have a chance to change them, run for office.
Then we should not have laws.
I wouldn't say all that. The law just shouldn't suck as much is all.
There's just a lot of stuff that shouldn't be enforced legally is all I'm trying to say.
Cop: "Your honor, Sam is accused of shooting Billy in the head in front of 10000 people."
Judge: "Oh, well. We can't do anything yet since he JUST broke the law."
That's a ridiculous example, and you know it. Sam didn't just break the law. He did something wrong too. Unless, of course, there are further complicating factors here that you haven't told me about.
Laws are made for a reason. Sometimes they are silly or bad reasons, but they are reasons none the less.
Doing something for no reason is better than doing something for a bad reason.
It's not for you or I to try and stop that part of the equation. Nor is it for a small minority to change them.
Yes, it is. It's for everybody to.
That's a ridiculous example, and you know it. Sam didn't just break the law. He did something wrong too. Unless, of course, there are further complicating factors here that you haven't told me about.
The law can't function if any old person can willy nilly decide that someone shouldn't be in trouble for breaking it. You think corruption is bad now?!?!? Wait for a system that allows that! The law must be enforced without exception and then sorted out later in order to be effective. It isn't for a police officer, a judge, you, or me to decide whether an individual law is right or wrong. It's for a majority of people and/or a jury to decide. We can form our opinions about such laws, but those opinion cannot be allowed to alter the enforcement of a particular law. I guarantee you that there are people (including police officers and judges) who personally feel that some murders are justified and not wrong.
It's not for you or I to try and stop that part of the equation. Nor is it for a small minority to change them.
Yes, it is. It's for everybody to.
And if everybody decides to let this woman off, she'll be fine.
Er, look closer. Those were the 2nd and 3rd sentences ;)
Read the following post I made. Already addressed it.
Er, look closer. Those were the 2nd and 3rd sentences ;)
Read the following post I made. Already addressed it.
I saw when I got there. However, I respond to posts as I get to them. I don't wait until I've caught up with the thread.
Er, look closer. Those were the 2nd and 3rd sentences ;)
Read the following post I made. Already addressed it.
I saw when I got there. However, I respond to posts as I get to them. I don't wait until I've caught up with the thread.
So we both reply without reading everything first. Makes sense.
The law can't function if any old person can willy nilly decide that someone shouldn't be in trouble for breaking it. You think corruption is bad now?!?!? Wait for a system that allows that! The law must be enforced without exception and then sorted out later in order to be effective. It isn't for a police officer, a judge, you, or me to decide whether an individual law is right or wrong. It's for a majority of people and/or a jury to decide. We can form our opinions about such laws, but those opinion cannot be allowed to alter the enforcement of a particular law. I guarantee you that there are people (including police officers and judges) who personally feel that some murders are justified and not wrong.
So then why is it legal for a police officer to decide not to ticket you when you get pulled over for speeding? Police can choose not to cite or arrest someone. The DA can choose not to press charges, even when there is more than sufficient evidence, even when the individual has in fact confessed. A jury can find someone not guilty. A judge can hand out a lenient sentence. These are all legitimate aspects of our legal system designed to protect those that do not deserve to suffer under it.
Er, look closer. Those were the 2nd and 3rd sentences ;)
Read the following post I made. Already addressed it.
I saw when I got there. However, I respond to posts as I get to them. I don't wait until I've caught up with the thread.
So we both reply without reading everything first. Makes sense.
Not quite. You replied without reading the entire post THAT YOU READ ;)
I merely responded to that post before getting to your correction. There's a difference.
A long time ago I tried waiting until I got to the end of a thead, but I ended up forgetting to respond to things I wanted to respond to and/or forgetting exactly what it was I wanted to say, so I no longer wait.
The law can't function if any old person can willy nilly decide that someone shouldn't be in trouble for breaking it.
Is that what you think that I think? Because if so, then I think that you think that I think something that I don't actually think.
It isn't for a police officer, a judge, you, or me to decide whether an individual law is right or wrong. It's for a majority of people and/or a jury to decide. We can form our opinions about such laws, but those opinion cannot be allowed to alter the enforcement of a particular law.
I totally disagree. It is our responsibility as individuals to interfere in the enforcement of unjust laws, whether the individual be you, me, a police officer, or a judge. The majority is often very, very wrong, and to our legal system's credit, that's why we have safeguards in place to make sure that the majority doesn't always get their way.
I guarantee you that there are people (including police officers and judges) who personally feel that some murders are justified and not wrong.
That's because some murders are justified and aren't wrong.
And if everybody decides to let this woman off, she'll be fine.
Exactly.
So then why is it legal for a police officer to decide not to ticket you when you get pulled over for speeding? Police can choose not to cite or arrest someone. The DA can choose not to press charges, even when there is more than sufficient evidence, even when the individual has in fact confessed. A jury can find someone not guilty. A judge can hand out a lenient sentence. These are all legitimate aspects of our legal system designed to protect those that do not deserve to suffer under it.
Bingo.
So then why is it legal for a police officer to decide not to ticket you when you get pulled over for speeding?
Infractions are often looked at differently than more serious crimes.
Police can choose not to cite or arrest someone.
They are supposed to arrest everyone they know has a warrant or have good reason to believe has committed a felony or misdemeanor.
The DA can choose not to press charges, even when there is more than sufficient evidence, even when the individual has in fact confessed.
The DA has more crimes than he can possibly pursue with his team, so he if forced to make those decisions.
A jury can find someone not guilty.
THIS is the only group that really has a set right to decide that.
A judge can hand out a lenient sentence.
Only within the guidelines of the law. If the law says 5 to 10 yeas, he can't give the person 4.
Cop: "Your honor, Sam is accused of shooting Billy in the head in front of 10000 people."
Judge: "Oh, well. We can't do anything yet since he JUST broke the law."
That's a ridiculous example, and you know it. Sam didn't just break the law. He did something wrong too. Unless, of course, there are further complicating factors here that you haven't told me about.
So are you sort of saying that if Billy shot the President and so Sam decided to be a vigilante and shoot Billy that Sam shouldn't necessarily be punished by the law? Would you possibly call that act of Sam not wrong or rather right?
So then why is it legal for a police officer to decide not to ticket you when you get pulled over for speeding?
Infractions are often looked at differently than more serious crimes.
Exactly. So you agree that not all laws are equal then.
Police can choose not to cite or arrest someone.
They are supposed to arrest everyone they know has a warrant or have good reason to believe has committed a felony or misdemeanor.
"Supposed to" but the system is exactly set up with the intent to allow them not to if they don't want to.
The DA can choose not to press charges, even when there is more than sufficient evidence, even when the individual has in fact confessed.
The DA has more crimes than he can possibly pursue with his team, so he if forced to make those decisions.
And some other times, they're not forced to at all. They just choose not to. I've seen it happen firsthand. And it's totally an intentional part of our system that they be able to so that.
A jury can find someone not guilty.
THIS is the only group that really has a set right to decide that.
I think that part that you're missing about this, though, is that a jury is totally allowed to find somebody not guilty even if they think that the person is guilty. This does sometimes happen exactly because the jury doesn't think that somebody should be punished.
A judge can hand out a lenient sentence.
Only within the guidelines of the law.
And such guidelines are often very leniant exactly so that the judge gets to do this.
So are you sort of saying that if Billy shot the President and so Sam decided to be a vigilante and shoot Billy that Sam shouldn't necessarily be punished by the law? Would you possibly call that act of Sam not wrong or rather right?
I've said nothing of the sort either way.
Exactly. So you agree that not all laws are equal then.
Heh. Police discretion for infractions is built into the law somewhere.
"Supposed to" but the system is exactly set up with the intent to allow them not to if they don't want to.
I don't think so. I just think that the higher ups ignore it when the police have other reasons for not pursuing the arrest.
And some other times, they're not forced to at all. They just choose not to. I've seen it happen firsthand. And it's totally an intentional part of our system that they be able to so that.
I doubt that you have. I don't doubt that you've seen them CHOOSE not to, but that ability to choose is driven by either lack of evidence, or huge case load. Sometimes they use "Won't further justice.", but they have the case load excess to back up that decision.
I think that part that you're missing about this, though, is that a jury is totally allowed to find somebody not guilty even if they think that the person is guilty. This does sometimes happen exactly because the jury doesn't think that somebody should be punished.
Nope. Didn't miss that at all. ;)
Police discretion for infractions is built into the law somewhere.
Exactly, and so is discretion for others that are part of the legal system.
I just think that the higher ups ignore it when the police have other reasons for not pursuing the arrest.
Yes, and they're intended to be allowed to ignore it.
I doubt that you have. I don't doubt that you've seen them CHOOSE not to, but that ability to choose is driven by either lack of evidence, or huge case load. Sometimes they use "Won't further justice.", but they have the case load excess to back up that decision.
Nope. Everybody was sitting right there in the court room, the DA looked down at the case and basically said "Wow, this is silly. I'm not doing this." so the judge said "Anybody in the room have a problem with us not doing this?" and nobody said anything, so everybody moved on. It was nothing to do with lack of evidence or a large case load. The DA just decided that the case was ridiculous.
Nope. Didn't miss that at all. ;)
And how do you feel about that?
Cop: "Your honor, Sam is accused of shooting Billy in the head in front of 10000 people."
Judge: "Oh, well. We can't do anything yet since he JUST broke the law."
That's a ridiculous example, and you know it. Sam didn't just break the law. He did something wrong too. Unless, of course, there are further complicating factors here that you haven't told me about.
It was part of a game show. That makes it ok, right?
It isn't for a police officer, a judge, you, or me to decide whether an individual law is right or wrong.
Ummm... Yeah, it is. That is precisely the function of appellate courts and up.
It was part of a game show.
Never heard of it.
To my knowledge, we still don't know what ordinance she supposedly violated. The only ones I could find that are pertinent to this case are ones she's clearly not in violation of.
Those two listed were both ones she could be in violation of. While they say weeds, they ALSO say as a separate thing, vegetation higher than 8 inches, which MANY garden plants exceed.
read it again.
Section 302.4 Weeds: All premises and exterior property shall be maintained free from weeds or plant growth in excess of eight inches (254mm). All noxious weeds shall be prohibited. Weeds shall be defined as all grasses, annual plants and vegetation, other than trees or shrubs; provided, however, this term shall not include cultivated flowers and gardens.
Improved property. No person owning any premises, whether or not occupied, and any person occupying any property (pursuant to any land contract, rental or leasehold agreement), including, for the purpose of this article, the abutting street right-of-way and the street curb, or the drainage course paralleling the street where there is no curb abutting such property, shall permit or maintain on any such property or premises any growth of weeds, rank vegetation or any growth of grass to a greater height than eight inches, or any accumulation of dead weeds, grass or brush. No such occupant or owner shall cause, suffer or permit poison ivy, poison oak or poison sumac, ragweed or other poisonous plants, or plants detrimental to health, to grow on any such premises or property.
It very specifically forbids grass to be greater than 8 inches.
I doubt that you have. I don't doubt that you've seen them CHOOSE not to, but that ability to choose is driven by either lack of evidence, or huge case load. Sometimes they use "Won't further justice.", but they have the case load excess to back up that decision.
Really? So when the defendants have already admitted to the crime and have no legal defense and the DA still drops the charges it's not because nothing wrong really happened? Case loads aside, you could easily argue that adding a case like that would require almost no effort and it would boost the conviction stats higher than taking on a more questionable case. So despite having nothing to lose and everything to gain, the DA still chooses not the pursue charges. Why, if not for the exact reasons we've already stated? And no, sometimes there is not a case load to back that up if someone questions it. Take a criminal justice class, this is all intentionally built into our justice system.
Cop: "Your honor, Sam is accused of shooting Billy in the head in front of 10000 people."
Judge: "Oh, well. We can't do anything yet since he JUST broke the law."
That's a ridiculous example, and you know it. Sam didn't just break the law. He did something wrong too. Unless, of course, there are further complicating factors here that you haven't told me about.
So are you sort of saying that if Billy shot the President and so Sam decided to be a vigilante and shoot Billy that Sam shouldn't necessarily be punished by the law? Would you possibly call that act of Sam not wrong or rather right?
Depends on the crimes of the president. In some cases I'd give Billy a medal and put Sam on death row and in other cases Sam would get the medal and Billy would go to death row...
Cop: "Your honor, Sam is accused of shooting Billy in the head in front of 10000 people."
Judge: "Oh, well. We can't do anything yet since he JUST broke the law."
That's a ridiculous example, and you know it. Sam didn't just break the law. He did something wrong too. Unless, of course, there are further complicating factors here that you haven't told me about.
So are you sort of saying that if Billy shot the President and so Sam decided to be a vigilante and shoot Billy that Sam shouldn't necessarily be punished by the law? Would you possibly call that act of Sam not wrong or rather right?
Depends on the crimes of the president. In some cases I'd give Billy a medal and put Sam on death row and in other cases Sam would get the medal and Billy would go to death row...
Well I was just proposing a hypothetical since CC said it might be ok to break the law based on complicating factors. He seems to imply the law should only punish if the act breaking the law is wrong. So what constitutes wrong?
Would vigilante killing of criminals be wrong or right? I mean that does bring up possible complicating factors.
Well I was just proposing a hypothetical since CC said it might be ok to break the law based on complicating factors.
Which is true. There are multiple complicating factors which make it legal for people to do things that would otherwise be illegal. Heck, this isn't even just my opinion; it's an actual part of our legal system.
Ummm... Yeah, it is. That is precisely the function of appellate courts and up.
This is incorrect. They are only to determine if the law is Constitutional OR if it was implemented correctly in that case. They don't get to determine if the law was right or wrong.
I doubt that you have. I don't doubt that you've seen them CHOOSE not to, but that ability to choose is driven by either lack of evidence, or huge case load. Sometimes they use "Won't further justice.", but they have the case load excess to back up that decision.
Really? So when the defendants have already admitted to the crime and have no legal defense and the DA still drops the charges it's not because nothing wrong really happened? Case loads aside, you could easily argue that adding a case like that would require almost no effort and it would boost the conviction stats higher than taking on a more questionable case. So despite having nothing to lose and everything to gain, the DA still chooses not the pursue charges. Why, if not for the exact reasons we've already stated? And no, sometimes there is not a case load to back that up if someone questions it. Take a criminal justice class, this is all intentionally built into our justice system.
ROFL Take a look at prison over crowding. The DA is also looking at fitting 6 murderers, 5 rapists and 4 petty theft offenders into 12 spots. Even if 3 of those petty theft offenders admit to it, the DA is pretty much forced to release them so he can fit the major offenders into the jail system.
I doubt that you have. I don't doubt that you've seen them CHOOSE not to, but that ability to choose is driven by either lack of evidence, or huge case load. Sometimes they use "Won't further justice.", but they have the case load excess to back up that decision.
Really? So when the defendants have already admitted to the crime and have no legal defense and the DA still drops the charges it's not because nothing wrong really happened? Case loads aside, you could easily argue that adding a case like that would require almost no effort and it would boost the conviction stats higher than taking on a more questionable case. So despite having nothing to lose and everything to gain, the DA still chooses not the pursue charges. Why, if not for the exact reasons we've already stated? And no, sometimes there is not a case load to back that up if someone questions it. Take a criminal justice class, this is all intentionally built into our justice system.
ROFL Take a look at prison over crowding. The DA is also looking at fitting 6 murderers, 5 rapists and 4 petty theft offenders into 12 spots. Even if 3 of those petty theft offenders admit to it, the DA is pretty much forced to release them so he can fit the major offenders into the jail system.
This doesn't change a single thing I've said. You could charge someone and give them a fine or probation rather than sending them to prison. And not every single location across the US shares the same concerns of caseloads and overcrowding, yet police and DAs across the US do have the power to exercise their own judgement.