- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Mother arrested at South Carolina Kroger for cursing in front of kids.
Posted on 8/15/14 at 12:40 pm to wildtigercat93
Posted on 8/15/14 at 12:40 pm to wildtigercat93
quote:
Wouldn't this be like the definition of a free speech violation?
I don't believe so because of this:
According to Salon, which looked up the city ordinance, disorderly conduct is defined as "riotous conduct of any kind," "cry[ing] out in a noisy, scandalous, or abusive manner" in a public place, or "utter[ing], while in a state of anger, in the presence of another, any bawdy, lewd, or obscene words or epithets."
For example: you can't scream "Fire!" in a movie theatre if there isn't one because it'll cause a panic. That clause is saying that cursing in public is "riotous". I'm assuming that is how they get away with it.
Posted on 8/15/14 at 1:18 pm to KG6
what is odd, is that the people (I mean group) that would want to see "curse words" as the thing of a past(meaning there are no curse words), is the same group that demonized words against gays, short people and minorities.
The side that is for the curse word rules and thinks they are a good idea, is the side that thinks words should be protected by free speech.
What you really get it another case of both sides wanting the same freedoms and the same restrictions. But with exceptions.
So many points are like this. Both political sides want controls and freedoms while acting like they only want freedom.
The side that is for the curse word rules and thinks they are a good idea, is the side that thinks words should be protected by free speech.
What you really get it another case of both sides wanting the same freedoms and the same restrictions. But with exceptions.
So many points are like this. Both political sides want controls and freedoms while acting like they only want freedom.
This post was edited on 8/15/14 at 2:23 pm
Posted on 8/15/14 at 1:27 pm to BlackleafBaller
I was shopping in the produce section at Albertsons once and a lady was waiting in line to get some chicken wings or something. She had a cute little boy with her. He couldn't have been more than two, if that old.
He was excitedly walking around to the produce that was nearby and pointing at the apples and saying "ball! ball!"
His clearly angry mother warned him to not touch the fruit and to come back over to where she was standing.
He picked up an apple and held it out and with a huge smile on his face said "mama, ball! ball!"
She darted over to him, jerked the apple out of his hand violently, jerked him by the arm violently, got about an inch from his face and said "listen to me you little mother f****, you better listen to me when I god*** tell you not to do something"
The little boy immediately crumpled to the floor in, what I assume was fear or possibly a learned reaction to physical abuse.
Anyway, she dragged him by his arm back into line.
I could just see the childlike purity drain from his face.
It was profoundly sad.
He was excitedly walking around to the produce that was nearby and pointing at the apples and saying "ball! ball!"
His clearly angry mother warned him to not touch the fruit and to come back over to where she was standing.
He picked up an apple and held it out and with a huge smile on his face said "mama, ball! ball!"
She darted over to him, jerked the apple out of his hand violently, jerked him by the arm violently, got about an inch from his face and said "listen to me you little mother f****, you better listen to me when I god*** tell you not to do something"
The little boy immediately crumpled to the floor in, what I assume was fear or possibly a learned reaction to physical abuse.
Anyway, she dragged him by his arm back into line.
I could just see the childlike purity drain from his face.
It was profoundly sad.
Posted on 8/15/14 at 1:33 pm to Napoleon
Wait...Did you get that backwards?
Posted on 8/15/14 at 1:38 pm to cleeveclever
Yeah...I'm not saying that cussing in front of kids (or especially directly at them) isn't trashy or unethical. However, it shouldn't be illegal where you can be detained solely for using the word itself.
Posted on 8/15/14 at 2:08 pm to Napoleon
Absolutely terrible reporting.
Somehow? Don't you think important part of the story? The writer wants us to believe that this lady was arrested solely because the used profanity in front of her children. Maybe I'm just skeptical by nature, but I seriously doubt that was the case. Somewhere in the author's "somehow" we're missing a large part of the story. Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but I suspect this "victim" became antagonistic with the other woman who "expressed her displeasure at the situation". I would be willing to bet that the police "somehow" showed up because they were called to address a (probably pretty heated) argument in the store, and that this woman was arrested because she remained atagonistic (justifiably or not) when the cops showed up.
But hey, why let "minor" facts get in the way of sensationalist journalism, right?
quote:
But somehow the police were called, and Wolf ended up getting arrested in the incident late Sunday.
Somehow? Don't you think important part of the story? The writer wants us to believe that this lady was arrested solely because the used profanity in front of her children. Maybe I'm just skeptical by nature, but I seriously doubt that was the case. Somewhere in the author's "somehow" we're missing a large part of the story. Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but I suspect this "victim" became antagonistic with the other woman who "expressed her displeasure at the situation". I would be willing to bet that the police "somehow" showed up because they were called to address a (probably pretty heated) argument in the store, and that this woman was arrested because she remained atagonistic (justifiably or not) when the cops showed up.
But hey, why let "minor" facts get in the way of sensationalist journalism, right?
Posted on 8/15/14 at 2:21 pm to BlackleafBaller
Yep I flubbed it. oh well.
Posted on 8/15/14 at 2:51 pm to Napoleon
More civil rights falling by the way side.
Posted on 8/15/14 at 3:06 pm to Napoleon
Bet her fat arse will think twice before she starts dropping F bombs in public again.
Posted on 8/15/14 at 3:07 pm to Napoleon
Bet her fat arse will think twice before she starts dropping F bombs in public again.
Posted on 8/15/14 at 3:31 pm to Alt26
quote:
Somehow? Don't you think important part of the story? The writer wants us to believe that this lady was arrested solely because the used profanity in front of her children. Maybe I'm just skeptical by nature, but I seriously doubt that was the case. Somewhere in the author's "somehow" we're missing a large part of the story. Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but I suspect this "victim" became antagonistic with the other woman who "expressed her displeasure at the situation". I would be willing to bet that the police "somehow" showed up because they were called to address a (probably pretty heated) argument in the store, and that this woman was arrested because she remained atagonistic (justifiably or not) when the cops showed up.
But hey, why let "minor" facts get in the way of sensationalist journalism, right?
quote:
Alt26
Holy Christ!!!
Please point out one fact in your idiotic post?
Posted on 8/15/14 at 4:22 pm to Sid in Lakeshore
quote:
Holy Christ!!!
Please point out one fact in your idiotic post?
The point is that there are no facts to indicate why the police where called. The story insinuates that the cops were called simply because this lady used profanity in front of her children. I seriously doubt the store managers, or whoever, called the police solely because a lady was using profanity. This is only bolstered by the fact that the article doesn't say exactly why the police were called, only that "somehow" the police were called. What's more likely? That the cops were called because a lady used bad language, or that the cops were called because a argument between customers took place?
From the sparse details given in the story do we know for a fact that an argument took place? No. This of course is why my post used such language as "I suspect" or "I would be willing to bet" as opposed to definitive statements. However, you are a complete fool, or unbelievably naive if you thinks cops got involved in this SOLELY because a lady allegedly used profanity. In fact, the brief quote from the other shopper suggest that my suspected version of what happen actually is the real reason this woman was arrested:
quote:
"But the shopper denies having a bad day, and says Wolf used profanity repeatedly — and even cursed at her after she approached the family to complain."
Sorry if I don't take every "I was unjustly arrested" bullshite story at face value.
Posted on 8/15/14 at 4:28 pm to Napoleon
quote:
She says her husband kept squishing the bread in their cart by putting frozen pizzas on top of it
Three pages and no one asked why they were putting the bread in the main basket of the cart?
The kid holder is for the bread and eggs...everything else goes in the main basket.
Posted on 8/15/14 at 6:48 pm to Napoleon
let me check my pocket constitution. yep, right here, freedom of speech.
frick the po-leese
frick the po-leese
Posted on 8/15/14 at 6:48 pm to Napoleon
This is why I shop at publix...
Posted on 8/15/14 at 7:05 pm to Napoleon
Cussing around kids in a public place not trashy huh ?
Posted on 8/15/14 at 7:33 pm to Napoleon
quote:
According to Salon
What they reported, sure that's over the top.
But there is almost certainly more to this store in order for the cops to get called. Even in South Carolina.
And Salon as the source doesn't help the credibility much. They facking hate anything to do with South Carolina.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News