- 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: Teen who was arrested for reading the Bible in Wisconsin speaks at council meeting.
Posted on 8/4/23 at 9:42 am to AggieHank86
Posted on 8/4/23 at 9:42 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Show us the applicable ordinances
Just to be clear, you would support anti trans laws equally and not claim it should be left up to parents, correct?
2
Posted on 8/4/23 at 9:43 am to RogerTheShrubber
He would support the Nazis as long as they followed the laws
Posted on 8/4/23 at 9:43 am to Nguyener
quote:
He would support the Nazis as long as they followed the laws
His argument here is vastly different than his child tranny stance.
Now he believes "if its legal, its right."
This post was edited on 8/4/23 at 9:44 am
Posted on 8/4/23 at 9:47 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:JFC, you are dense.
Show us the applicable ordinancesquote:
Just to be clear, you would support anti trans laws equally and not claim it should be left up to parents, correct?
His post was a criticism of selective enforcement. Neither he nor I was addressing the merits of the underlying ordinances.
Posted on 8/4/23 at 9:48 am to AggieHank86
quote:
JFC
Those who turn from God are doomed to an eternity of fire. I hope you see the light one day Hank
Posted on 8/4/23 at 9:48 am to AggieHank86
quote:
JFC, you are dense.
I put you down for never claiming "it should be left up to the parents" when child trannyism is argued again.
Posted on 8/4/23 at 9:52 am to thebigmuffaletta
quote:
Fake libertarian comes against free speech. Color me shocked!
He believes cops should be able to determine whats reasonable here.
Yeah, its a ridiculous take.
Posted on 8/4/23 at 9:54 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:No, Roger. The ultimate determination of whether the volume was "reasonable" (shorthand) lies with the courts, not the police.
He believes cops should be able to determine whats reasonable here.
You really do not understand the legal system very well, do you?
Posted on 8/4/23 at 9:55 am to AggieHank86
quote:
No, Roger. The ultimate determination of whether the volume was "reasonable" (shorthand) lies with the courts, not the police.
So cops should arrest anyone talking in public and let the courts decide if it’s reasonable? They have no ability to decide for themselves?
This post was edited on 8/4/23 at 9:56 am
Posted on 8/4/23 at 9:55 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:Since you clearly do not understand anything being discussed in this thread, I have ZERO doubt that you will misrepresent it in some future thread.
I put you down for never claiming "it should be left up to the parents" when child trannyism is argued again.
Posted on 8/4/23 at 9:57 am to Nguyener
quote:
Drag queens marching in the street screaming they’re coming for your children? Not arrested
People screaming no justice no peace and stopping traffic? Not arrested
People screaming frick Trump in DC? Not arrested
Masked lunatics screaming at people anywhere from a restaurant to church? Not arrested.
Some kid reading the Bible? Arrested
Your argument falls flat on its face and you’re a fork tongued hypocrite.
Selective enforcement of the law is wrong. Political persecution of a selected group because of their beliefs is terribly wrong. You support both because you’re an “intellectual moderate.”
Protestors from all sides of the political spectrum get arrested frequently. A trans activist in NY was arrested last month for using a bullhorn without a permit during a protest. And like some folks on this thread, a bunch of transfolks called out the cops as being bigoted and unjust.
IMO The Watertown code should be tightened up but, this notion that law enforcement in our country is selectively targeting Christians is non sense.
Posted on 8/4/23 at 9:57 am to Nguyener
quote:Law enforcement officers have the authority (Hell, the "duty") to make preliminary determinations as to whether a statute or ordinance has been violated, and the court system makes the final determination as to whether there was a violation.
So cops should arrest anyone talking in public and let the courts decide if it’s reasonable? They have no ability to decide for themselves?
That is how the criminal justice system works. This is not rocket science.
Posted on 8/4/23 at 9:59 am to LARancher1991
quote:
How is it incorrect?
Free for all moral systems do not lead to peaceful, prosperous societies.
Most people prefer peaceful, prosperous socities.
Therefore, most people do not like free for all moral systems.
It has nothing to do with God. It has to do with group cooperation providing better benefits than going it alone.
Posted on 8/4/23 at 9:59 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Since you clearly do not understand anything being discussed in this thread
I do, you are just shallow.
I just expect consistency. Not from you though.
Your argument here is for community standards, I support that all the way through, unlike yourself.
Posted on 8/4/23 at 10:01 am to timdonaghyswhistle
quote:
He doesn't have the right to read the Bible where others can hear it though, so says the board legal expert
That “expert” must have gone to Southern law or whatever one is the worst law school.
Posted on 8/4/23 at 10:01 am to Mid Iowa Tiger
quote:
That “expert” must have gone to Southern law or whatever one is the worst law school.
he just has conditional ideology.
Posted on 8/4/23 at 10:04 am to AggieHank86
quote:
no, Jimmy, I support the right of the residents of a given community to make the rules to govern themselves.
Bookmark this one for future hypocrisy.
Posted on 8/4/23 at 10:10 am to AggieHank86
quote:
he can read aloud to his heart’s content, just not at a volume which would annoy or disturb a reasonable person
And who gets to decide what that limit is? He wasn’t loud, it was the message that “annoyed or disturbed” people. A message that even whispered by their conscience they would have been bothered by.
The ordinance is do vaguely written it won’t stand up to legal scrutiny. A keen legal mind such as yours should be able to see that easily.
Posted on 8/4/23 at 10:30 am to Mid Iowa Tiger
quote:
And who gets to decide what that limit is?
Hank says your average officer is unbiased and is perfectly capable of distinguishing.
Posted on 8/4/23 at 10:36 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
I'm not sure I want cops deciding "reasonable."
I get it, but that’s how we as Americans set up our system of governance.
Uncorrupted, it is hands down the best in the era of man.
But it’s implemented and run by man, so it has large exposure to suck. (<—— suck is intended to be read as a noun)
This post was edited on 8/4/23 at 10:37 am
Page 5 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News