It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chicopee Man Faces Charges For ‘Put Wings On Pigs’ Facebook Post

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: deadeyedick


originally posted by: ScientificRailgun


originally posted by: deadeyedick



If anyone is responsible it would be facebook for allowing the content. Just like they and others allow wartime postings across the world.








That would be like banning books because they can teach people how to build bombs.







You can't blame the medium for the content that's posted to it.




yes i can. and i do.

it is called responsibility and learning how to make bombs is not the same as telling someone to set one off or incite them through hate speech.

I am cool with books teaching things but not cool with a place where armies are using to wage wars.





as long as facebok tweeter and others allow it they will be used to perpetuate violence.



The site we are on is a great example.

I am free to post anarchist cook book but not free to tell someone where and when to use it.
Books, texts, etc have incited rebellions and toppled nations. The ideologies they teach may teach things that cause people to rise up against their government. Books have indirectly been responsible for millions of deaths, why not place blame on them?



You cannot apply the standard to one medium and not the other.

Sure we can. It is a matter of personal responsibility for fb in this case to monitor their content.
We can do that or just do away with modern tech and go back to burning books. Either way tyranny will be involved.
edit on 23-12-2014 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: SlapMonkey

By all means look into it. I would hate for another person to die because of an assumption... but I'd also hate to see someone punished based on an assumption.
If I'm not mistaken, leveling charges on someone allows them to do exactly as you suggest, to look into it. If they don't find any credibility to the perceived threat they'll probably drop the charges.

Though, I don't think charges were appropriate here. A simple question and answer session followed by a "Ok, that was a stupid post. Go home" would have been fine.

If anything, this experience only solidifies this kid's idea that "pigs should have wings", as he has been unjustly charged with a crime for posting an opinion.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Wait a minute, so the guy simply said he was "gonna put wings on pigs?" Nothing else? If that is the case then I think it is absurd to arrest him or charge him with a crime. Perhaps he was going to glue some wings on a real pig, and unless they were concerned about animal cruelty I do not think they could arrest him for such a comment. The thing with free speech is that you can say whatever you want, as long as you do not make threats or anything like that. The sentence about pigs is not a blatant threat, therefore I feel that his constitutional rights have been violated. In the US a person is not supposed to be arrested unless there is evidence that they committed a crime, or if there is good reason to believe that they will commit a crime, although that is really shaky ground in my opinion. The police are a reactive force, in that they should not be allowed to arrest people who have not committed a crime. When you start arresting people because you "think" they will do something, things start getting into the realm of constitutional violation. Who judges that a person is going to commit a crime? How much evidence is enough?

It is different from being prosecuted for a crime, where evidence is presented and a jury decides. If the police are the ones making the call of whether to arrest a person, then obviously a person is not being judged by a real judge or a jury of his/her peers. So in my opinion a person who has not committed a crime should only be arrested when it is blatantly obvious they will commit a crime. And saying that he was going to put wings on pigs does not constitute a threat viable enough to violate his constitutional rights. We live in a country where suspicion is NOT evidence, and considering that he made no direct threat, never mentioned police, etc., this is absurd. Unless I'm wrong and he said more, but if this is the case I did not see as much.

ETA: It is getting to the point in America where the police are basically arresting everybody and letting the court system sort it out. They don't care that they violated a person's rights by arresting them when there was no constitutional grounds for arrest in the first place. And this would be alright if the police could be prosecuted and held accountable for violating a person's rights, but our legal system refuses to punish such individuals, therefore things are infinitely worse.
edit on 12/23/14 by JiggyPotamus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Exactly, I'm sure the charges will be dropped by why level them in the first place? Police are allowed to investigate last I knew.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

They certainly are. There are certain things they CAN'T do without charges like hold someone for more than 24 hours, but this was an overreach by the police, and I usually speak up in support of them.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
Wait a minute, so the guy simply said he was "gonna put wings on pigs?" Nothing else? If that is the case then I think it is absurd to arrest him or charge him with a crime. Perhaps he was going to glue some wings on a real pig, and unless they were concerned about animal cruelty I do not think they could arrest him for such a comment. The thing with free speech is that you can say whatever you want, as long as you do not make threats or anything like that. The sentence about pigs is not a blatant threat, therefore I feel that his constitutional rights have been violated. In the US a person is not supposed to be arrested unless there is evidence that they committed a crime, or if there is good reason to believe that they will commit a crime, although that is really shaky ground in my opinion. The police are a reactive force, in that they should not be allowed to arrest people who have not committed a crime. When you start arresting people because you "think" they will do something, things start getting into the realm of constitutional violation. Who judges that a person is going to commit a crime? How much evidence is enough?

It is different from being prosecuted for a crime, where evidence is presented and a jury decides. If the police are the ones making the call of whether to arrest a person, then obviously a person is not being judged by a real judge or a jury of his/her peers. So in my opinion a person who has not committed a crime should only be arrested when it is blatantly obvious they will commit a crime. And saying that he was going to put wings on pigs does not constitute a threat viable enough to violate his constitutional rights. We live in a country where suspicion is NOT evidence, and considering that he made no direct threat, never mentioned police, etc., this is absurd. Unless I'm wrong and he said more, but if this is the case I did not see as much.

ETA: It is getting to the point in America where the police are basically arresting everybody and letting the court system sort it out. They don't care that they violated a person's rights by arresting them when there was no constitutional grounds for arrest in the first place. And this would be alright if the police could be prosecuted and held accountable for violating a person's rights, but our legal system refuses to punish such individuals, therefore things are infinitely worse.


You're the only one speaking the truth here. Every one else is following a conspiracy. Shame on them.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Exactly, I'm sure the charges will be dropped by why level them in the first place? Police are allowed to investigate last I knew.


It's part of an ongoing psy-ops.

Keeps people scared and fearful.




posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 04:30 PM
link   
The most interesting part about this is that those words are seen as a threat that is enough to incarcerate over.

Yet a woman trying to get away from an abusive partner has to have one hell of a whole lot more than that to even get a restraining order.

That is some NLBS for you.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   
He shouldn't be arrested for what he said, but he should be arrested for having jheri curl and rainbow color "Taboo" tattoo on his neck.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 04:47 PM
link   
In case no one's mentioned this.

Terroristic Threats


The first component is proof that something was said that can be considered threatening. Words are often subject to interpretation. This interpretation will usually be evaluated from the victim’s point of view. For example, if a husband tells his wife, “I’m going to kill you,” then the threat is fairly direct and any person, including the wife, would consider the statement threatening. Some threats are more veiled but the context of the statement could be considered a threat.

The second component is the intent of the threat. People make casual threats every day. To separate the playful threats from the serious or disturbing ones, states add a component requiring that the intent of the threat to be for some specific, illegal purpose. Some intent examples used in varying states include: intent to terrorize victim, intent to disrupt public operation or event, intent to intimidate a witness, and intent to scare a police officer. Intent to terrorize is the most common type of intent required. The other types of intent will be set out in the state’s penal codes. Intent is inferred from the statement and the circumstances surrounding the statement. Many defendants do not contest that the statement was made, but rather the intent behind the statement.

I don't think what he posted is funny or appropriate or called for.
edit on 12/23/2014 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Me neither.

But why do police get to treat themselves like sacred cows?

When it is a citizen being threatened, "with wings" won't even get you a restraining order.

I don't have a problem with how the goose is treated, but I feel the gander should get the same treatment.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Basically charging a person with a thought crime, a la 1984. Though stupid, his "crime" amounts to typing letters on keys.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Thank the Patriot Act.

Mmhmm.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Maybe he just wanted to buy a few officers a nice, cold Red Bull to reward their hard work? Those, I've been told, give you wings.

I'm stretching here because I was born in Chicopee and hate that the first time I've ever noticed it in a story, is because of some idiot.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 06:59 PM
link   
It doesn't happen all that often, but this time, I agree with Kali.

This guy is an inconsiderate moron, but what he posted wasn't a threat, nor could it ever be logically proven to be one. Just because the police departments across the country are feeling raw about those words (and rightfully so), doesn't give them the right to arrest someone based on that emotion. Cops aren't paid to react on emotion, they're paid to inject rationality into irrational situations (you break the law, you face punishment). They are supposed to be the "black and white" in the 'sea of gray' that the rest of us tread on a daily basis.

If the guy had said, "I'm going to put wings on pigs", then I would be completely on the side of the police on this, but he didn't say that.

Reactions like the one we're witnessing in this situation, lead to an extremely slippery slope that none of us should be willing to embark upon.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ProfessorChaos

Of course it was a threat. Given the context.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

It was a quote. Where exactly did you see context?



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: ProfessorChaos

It's within the context of what the idiot who killed the two officers in NYC said. The context, the climate, what it means, what it encourages.

ETA: If they find and charge him, and if he has a good lawyer, he may get out of it, but it's pretty clear what it means, and he really should have given this some real, hard thought.
edit on 12/23/2014 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 08:35 PM
link   
If all he posted was the words "Put Wings on Pigs" this will get thrown out of court. There are no legal grounds to charge him with anything and if there were Dr. Dre and Snoop would have been charged for their song "187 On an Undercover Cop" from 1992.

I am all for police monitoring public facing social media and keeping a really close eye on people that post stupid things like the kid in the OP did, but to arrest someone for 4 words is crazy and goes against everything this country stands for.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 08:39 PM
link   
It wasn't a "quote" either. The cop killer wrote, "I'm putting wings on pigs today." This idiot said "Put Wings on Pigs," as in do it, as in an incitement. F**k that s**t...nd his right to "free" speech. There are times when people need to be held accountable for what they say.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join