donbarzini
Well-Known Member
Whatsa matter? Can't keep track of your lies?
Whatsa matter? Can't keep track of your lies?
Actually, it wasn't a dissenting opinion - it was a huge headline on election day that said "FRITZ GUILTY OF RAPE," which was only marginally true. Whatever happened, Fritz was only found guilty of statutory rape - sex with a girl who was only a few years younger than him.
I have no real problem with the public being "deprived" of sensationalism and false innuendo.
Right. And OJ was innocent.
The deputies were off-duty and they were not "ordered" to do anything. Those who chose not to participate were not penalized in any way. I don't know where you're getting that this is some huge conspiracy of cop wrongdoing, because the only thing having to do with them being cops is that they were sick of States Attorneys who put everything on the stet docket and set criminals back on the street to prey on the rest of us.
If a bunch of average citizens committed the same act, buying up newspapers to prevent sensational headlines from derailing a legitimate election, would you be as outraged? Somehow, I doubt you would.
MMDad
Lem Putt
As outraged? No. The average citizen has not sworn to uphold the law. But outraged? Yes, I would be.
I see it the same as a denial of service attack on a website. What if you broke a story about a politician who raped (stautory rape is still rape) someone? Next thing you know, you are getting a million hits per minute. Nobody can read your breaking news because your servers are swamped.
Would you be happy that your hit count statistics are through the roof? Or would you be pizzed that you could not communicate with your audience?
Do you really see a story like the State's Attorney being a rapist as "sensationalism and innuendo?"
MMDad
Lem Putt
Uh, yeah. Because the story wasn't about violent forcible rape, as most people envision when they hear or read the word "rape", but merely sex between two kids who were a few years apart in age.
If someone said to you, "I was raped," wouldn't you immediately assume it was a violent forcible rape?
Fritz was a much better States Attorney than Dorsey.That really worked out well for them, didn't it?
MMDad
Lem Putt
That's kind of like our Presidential choices though, isn't it? Better? Or less bad?
MMDad
Lem Putt
I know someone who says she was raped by a teacher. It wasn't violent. I consider it to be rape, as does she.
I think you're paying too much attention to the word "statutory" and too little attention to the word "rape."
And I think you are paying too much attention to the word "rape" and too little attention to the word "statutory".
We're not talking about a teacher and student. We're talking about a 15 year old and an 18 year old who went to the same school.
But now that you're totally invested in your opinion, based on incorrect assumptions and false allegations, feel free to hang in there.
The real thing is, what he was charged with wouldn't be a crime today! But that gets lost in MMDAD's rhetoric. The fact of the matter is, these guys weren't acting as police officers, no police officer ordered any of them to do this, they acted on their own. I have never said police officers are "on duty" 24 hours a day! If we were, I need a pay raise because I would be paid less than the minimum wage. I believe police officers should act in accordance with all laws, off duty or on! This violation was a CIVIL violation, which was left open to interpretation. Two lower court judges said there was no violation and an appelete court said there was. I don't think you can hold people without a law degree accountable for knowing what an appelete court is going to say. I firmly believe if the people who did this knew it was a violation, then they wouldn't have done it. I firmly believe the average citizen wouldn't think that buying newspapers would be a violation of the constitution. He has a right to free speech, and they have a right of protest. Their idea of protest was condemned by a higher court, but that doesn't mean it was obvious! So go ahead MMDAD, attack those who disagree with you by calling them names. Show how you believe in the constitution and respect people to have difference of opinions. I think your actions are a bit hypocritical!
No, I know exactly what I have said. Unlike you, I stay with my convictions and don't change them based on the mood of the forum there Don.
MMDad
Lem Putt
But now that you're totally invested in your opinion, based on incorrect assumptions and false allegations, feel free to hang in there.
Pot, may I introduce you to kettle?
MMDad
Lem Putt
Was it a crime when he did it? Don't get lost in your own rhetoric.
It's now legal to drive 65 on some highways. Should we go back and remove the convictions of everyone who was ticketed back when the limit was 55?
camily
Peace
MMDad
Lem Putt
For those of you who say the cops were not acting as cops, and that first amendment rights were not violated, you should read this:
http://images.somd.com/docs/Rossignol_v_Voorhaar_021326.P.pdf
http://images.somd.com/docs/Rossignol_v_Voorhaar_021326.P.pdf
Okay, so now every single decision handed down by every single judge in every single case is the fair, judicial and correct decision?
Or just the ones you agree with?
MMDad
Lem Putt
Now that you're totally invested in your opinion, based on incorrect assumptions and false allegations, feel free to hang in there.
I'm not saying that at all. The man was convicted and served whatever sentence was imposed. But this headline was put out there the day of the election in a manner to attempt to alter the election. Is that the American way? Is that fair jounalism? Is that how you envision your America should be? What opportunity would the candidate have to rebut that headline on the day of the election. Do you believe the newspaper just got that story that day or decided to hold it to attempt to alter a fair election?
Lugnut
I'm Rick James #####!
As opposed to law enforecemnet officers rounding up all the newpapers? Is that the America YOU envision???