If he had looked at the man's wife and stuck his right bird finger in and out of his left fist, he'd have been convicted of rape.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
All kidding aside, I think context is everything here.

From what the OP posted, that gesture constituted a threat of physical violence.

That is exactly how I'd perceive it. Think about in the movies, that gesture is always the bad guys move to scare someone.

As do I. But, here's the thing.

The court ruled (and argued to some degree) that the finger gun "served no legitimate purpose, and recklessly risked provoking a dangerous altercation.". But, the other asshole who instigated it was not cited, as flipping the double bird meets the same standard established by the court for disorderly conduct.

I get that the article leaves much to be desired, and that even local "reporters" try their best to be CNN in spinning a story. But, had I have been the responding officer, I would have cited both of them, or neither of them. You can't cite one without the other IMO.

Wouldn't the middle finger be similar to 'fighting words' and the shooting gesture a threat? Do you (the law) see them on the same level?

Do you have knowledge of the case? I can't tell from the article who had the six cameras installed? My guess its more likely the camera installer was not the instigator in my mind, just because I would think the one filming would be the one wanting protection from the more crazy party.

I have no other information other than taking the poorly written article at face value.

But.

The level of "threat" really doesn't matter. The guy wasn't charged and convicted of terroristic threatening or a similar charge. The guy was convicted of disorderly conduct. Using the same standard used by the trial court and appellate, the double bird meets the same standard as applied in the DC charges for the finger gun. It served no legitimate purpose and recklessly risked provoking an incident.

These idiots are apparently in the third grade and both of them needed to be charged, or no one needed to be charged. Charging Mr. Fingergun only is about like another kid coming up and hitting my kid repeatedly, and then when my kid hits them back, my kid only getting in trouble for fighting.

Sounds to me (and again I have no inside information) that LE failed to cite for something (ANYTHING) on the previous trips out there.

quote:

These idiots are apparently in the third grade and both of them needed to be charged, or no one needed to be charged. Charging Mr. Fingergun only is about like another kid coming up and hitting my kid repeatedly, and then when my kid hits them back, my kid only getting in trouble for fighting.

No I think they both rode the short bus. What a waste of time for the Court.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:

quote:

These idiots are apparently in the third grade and both of them needed to be charged, or no one needed to be charged. Charging Mr. Fingergun only is about like another kid coming up and hitting my kid repeatedly, and then when my kid hits them back, my kid only getting in trouble for fighting.

No I think they both rode the short bus. What a waste of time for the Court.

Word.

But, you would be surprised how much time LE spends dealing with stuff like this. One neighbor constantly calling in on the other for home owners association violations, the other calling in for the one removing mattress tags, etc.

quote:

But, you would be surprised how much time LE spends dealing with stuff like this. One neighbor constantly calling in on the other for home owners association violations, the other calling in for the one removing mattress tags, etc

^^^^^^
It seems to be first idea that pops into their minds. Let's call the cops. I appreciate what you guys do.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
But, you would be surprised how much time LE spends dealing with stuff like this. One neighbor constantly calling in on the other for home owners association violations, the other calling in for the one removing mattress tags, etc.

Lol. This happened yesterday. We’re searching for a guy with a gun that was shooting at his girlfriend. We’re looking for the girlfriend too because she took off. Wanted to make sure she was okay. Meanwhile someone’s calling for police response because the neighbor is getting grass clippings on their lawn. All of a sudden ATF shows up. They’re looking for the girl because grandma called them and sent pictures of the girl holding a modified Glock. IIRC, that’s like the fourth or fifth one in our area. We’ve already seized two. And they do work. Can’t believe I missed that eBay listing.

The finger gun is now illegal? What's next, banning the knife hand???

quote:

Originally posted by synthplayer:
Who was more tyrannical and repressive - the Crown of England, or our modern day government?

If you are talking the Crown circa 1776, our modern day government probably has them beat. Certainly has more tools to oppress with. If you are talking the modern day Crown against our modern day government, it may be a push. I believe it may be only Disney that competes with London for most cameras per square foot.

The sad thing is we only get the government we deserve. If we would act like adults, treat our neighbors with respect, and resolve our issues peacefully instead of running to “Mommy” (government) to resolve the silliest little BS, we’d need (and likely have) a lot less government. JMHO but, we'd be better off with a lot more responsibility and a lot less government.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:

quote:

But, you would be surprised how much time LE spends dealing with stuff like this. One neighbor constantly calling in on the other for home owners association violations, the other calling in for the one removing mattress tags, etc

^^^^^^
It seems to be first idea that pops into their minds. Let's call the cops. I appreciate what you guys do.

It gets better. Usually, as they are telling the tale, you can look above their head and read their thought bubble. It usually says something like "Ok, they have NEVER heard anything like this before, so I'm going to tell them he's.........dealing drugs. Yeah that is it".

Then when you shoot them down on that, they almost get that Charlie-Brown-with-the-tongue-hanging-out-the-side-deep-thought and you can see "Ok, I'm going to say that they are abusing their children".

And then when that gets shot down they revert to the you-just-are-refusing-to-do-your-job-and-arrest-them-for-mattress-tags-it's-a-federal-offense mode.

It is almost as if they think we've never heard a bit of this before.

The more ghetto the person, the longer learning the lesson takes. IMO.

Tennis player fined $10K for 'racquet gun gesture'

US Open 2019: Mike Bryan fined $10,000 for racquet gun gesture

ike Bryan received a $10,000 fine from the US Open for mimicking pointing a gun at a line judge during a doubles match on Saturday.

Playing with his brother Bob Bryan, Mike Bryan received a code violation for unsportsmanlike conduct from chair umpire Mariana Alves during the second set of their match with Federico Delbonis and Roberto Carballes Baena.

The US Open subsequently assessed Mike Bryan the fine, which is the largest given to a male player at this year's grand slam, with the 41-year-old conceding his gesture could be deemed particularly inappropriate given the recent spate of shootings in the United States.

In a statement reported by the New York Times, Mike Bryan said: "I apologise for any offense I may have caused. We won the point and the gesture was meant to be playful.

"But given the recent news and political climate I understand how my gesture could be viewed as insensitive. I promise that I will never do anything like this again."

The Bryan brothers won the match in straight sets. Mike Bryan has claimed 18 grand slam doubles titles, 16 of those coming alongside Bob.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
All kidding aside, I think context is everything here.

From what the OP posted, that gesture constituted a threat of physical violence.

That is exactly how I'd perceive it. Think about in the movies, that gesture is always the bad guys move to scare someone.

As do I. But, here's the thing.

The court ruled (and argued to some degree) that the finger gun "served no legitimate purpose, and recklessly risked provoking a dangerous altercation.". But, the other asshole who instigated it was not cited, as flipping the double bird meets the same standard established by the court for disorderly conduct.

I get that the article leaves much to be desired, and that even local "reporters" try their best to be CNN in spinning a story. But, had I have been the responding officer, I would have cited both of them, or neither of them. You can't cite one without the other IMO.

Wouldn't the middle finger be similar to 'fighting words' and the shooting gesture a threat? Do you (the law) see them on the same level?

Do you have knowledge of the case? I can't tell from the article who had the six cameras installed? My guess its more likely the camera installer was not the instigator in my mind, just because I would think the one filming would be the one wanting protection from the more crazy party.

I have no other information other than taking the poorly written article at face value.

But.

The level of "threat" really doesn't matter. The guy wasn't charged and convicted of terroristic threatening or a similar charge. The guy was convicted of disorderly conduct. Using the same standard used by the trial court and appellate, the double bird meets the same standard as applied in the DC charges for the finger gun. It served no legitimate purpose and recklessly risked provoking an incident.

These idiots are apparently in the third grade and both of them needed to be charged, or no one needed to be charged. Charging Mr. Fingergun only is about like another kid coming up and hitting my kid repeatedly, and then when my kid hits them back, my kid only getting in trouble for fighting.

Sounds to me (and again I have no inside information) that LE failed to cite for something (ANYTHING) on the previous trips out there.

I think I got it. The charge he was charged with was for escalating the argument, which both were guilty of, and not for make a threat to shoot the guy at a later date?

IF that is the case, guy should have been charged with the threat, or not all, or both charged with escalating the fight. Right?

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:

quote:

But, you would be surprised how much time LE spends dealing with stuff like this. One neighbor constantly calling in on the other for home owners association violations, the other calling in for the one removing mattress tags, etc

^^^^^^
It seems to be first idea that pops into their minds. Let's call the cops. I appreciate what you guys do.

It gets better. Usually, as they are telling the tale, you can look above their head and read their thought bubble. It usually says something like "Ok, they have NEVER heard anything like this before, so I'm going to tell them he's.........dealing drugs. Yeah that is it".

Then when you shoot them down on that, they almost get that Charlie-Brown-with-the-tongue-hanging-out-the-side-deep-thought and you can see "Ok, I'm going to say that they are abusing their children".

And then when that gets shot down they revert to the you-just-are-refusing-to-do-your-job-and-arrest-them-for-mattress-tags-it's-a-federal-offense mode.

It is almost as if they think we've never heard a bit of this before.

The more ghetto the person, the longer learning the lesson takes. IMO.

Funny......my son has told me the same on several occasions. I would say that you wouldn't believe some of the stories he has told me. Then again, I'm sure you would.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:

quote:

But, you would be surprised how much time LE spends dealing with stuff like this. One neighbor constantly calling in on the other for home owners association violations, the other calling in for the one removing mattress tags, etc

^^^^^^
It seems to be first idea that pops into their minds. Let's call the cops. I appreciate what you guys do.

It gets better. Usually, as they are telling the tale, you can look above their head and read their thought bubble. It usually says something like "Ok, they have NEVER heard anything like this before, so I'm going to tell them he's.........dealing drugs. Yeah that is it".

Then when you shoot them down on that, they almost get that Charlie-Brown-with-the-tongue-hanging-out-the-side-deep-thought and you can see "Ok, I'm going to say that they are abusing their children".

And then when that gets shot down they revert to the you-just-are-refusing-to-do-your-job-and-arrest-them-for-mattress-tags-it's-a-federal-offense mode.

It is almost as if they think we've never heard a bit of this before.

The more ghetto the person, the longer learning the lesson takes. IMO.

I don't have the experience, but I can agree with your narrative. FWIW, I think it's only a federal offense to remove mattress/pillow tags BEFORE they are sold to the end user; the end user can remove them without a charge.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:

quote:

But, you would be surprised how much time LE spends dealing with stuff like this. One neighbor constantly calling in on the other for home owners association violations, the other calling in for the one removing mattress tags, etc

^^^^^^
It seems to be first idea that pops into their minds. Let's call the cops. I appreciate what you guys do.

It gets better. Usually, as they are telling the tale, you can look above their head and read their thought bubble. It usually says something like "Ok, they have NEVER heard anything like this before, so I'm going to tell them he's.........dealing drugs. Yeah that is it".

Then when you shoot them down on that, they almost get that Charlie-Brown-with-the-tongue-hanging-out-the-side-deep-thought and you can see "Ok, I'm going to say that they are abusing their children".

And then when that gets shot down they revert to the you-just-are-refusing-to-do-your-job-and-arrest-them-for-mattress-tags-it's-a-federal-offense mode.

It is almost as if they think we've never heard a bit of this before.

The more ghetto the person, the longer learning the lesson takes. IMO.

I don't have the experience, but I can agree with your narrative. FWIW, I think it's only a federal offense to remove mattress/pillow tags BEFORE they are sold to the end user; the end user can remove them without a charge.

flashguy

The whole removing tags is a joke.

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:
If he had looked at the man's wife and stuck his right bird finger in and out of his left fist, he'd have been convicted of rape.

Was thinking much the same thing. I guess if you look at some chick and grab your crotch, that's now the equivalent of rape. Talk about a retarded culture.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:

I think I got it. The charge he was charged with was for escalating the argument, which both were guilty of, and not for make a threat to shoot the guy at a later date?

IF that is the case, guy should have been charged with the threat, or not all, or both charged with escalating the fight. Right?

Disorderly is usually being "disorderly" in public. The charge here used to be much more wide ranging than what it is today. I remember years and years ago, a girl got charged locally for disorderly for wearing a T shirt that said "Fuck Black People" (only that isn't what it said). These days, it's perfectly accepted and considered free speech. If a business owner catches someone concealed carrying, and asks them to leave and they refuse, they get charged with disorderly.

Yeah, I think that some sort of terroristic threatening charge would have been more appropriate to what the court was trying to say happened.

I personally disagree with it though.

BUT...and a big BUT....I'm just talking from a LE perspective on how I would have handled it given the LIMITED amount of information given in the poorly written article. For all I know, Mr. Finger Gun may have been an asshole and completely deserving of getting got.