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.

 

No charges for New Jersey cop’s daughter after she dressed as Hitler and threatened to kill Jews

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
a reply to: Shamrock6

I agree she is a nutter with some major issues, but a terrorist threat....yeah, not sure about that.


Why was this teenager arrested?

m.nydailynews.com...=1

I'll stick to my original stance that if she had posted a picture of some cops and said the same about a police station it would have been considered a threat.



Your probably right.
But I also think the fort hood shooter should have been arrested a hung on terrorism charges about three years ago. Sometimes this crap is hard to figure out.




posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
a reply to: Shamrock6

What law did this one break?


m.nydailynews.com...=1


None, in that case. Which is why a grand jury didn't return a true bill on him.



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

He was charged with making terroristic threats and spent time in jail waiting be arraigned. A bit different than the OP. No?



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   
It's a raw story piece what do you all expect.
If it was a crime to say stupid things then all of us would be in jail.

edit on 6-2-2015 by thesaneone because: Cause



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
She's a dumbarse of the worst kind, probably a bigot, and all around probably just a terrible human being. But I don't see where she broke any laws. There aren't (yet) any laws prohibiting antisemitism in the U.S., and putting a caption on a photo isn't exactly a terrorist threat.


Did you bother to read the article?

You don't consider this type of hate speech a threat? If you were Jewish...would you ???




“I really wanna drive around Lakewood and run over every Jew with my car.”


The spin and deflection on this thread is astonishing.

Would it be a terrorist threat if I said. " I really wanna drive around Lakewood and run over every Christian with my car"



edit on 6-2-2015 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

I have been known to say that I want to run over all the retired people in town that drive 25 in the left hand lane. I doubt ill do it, though.

I am as anti-LEO as you will find, aligning more closely with anarchism that any other political concept. But this is just a girl acting stupid. She is likely troubled in some way. That sort of behavior is just not normal.



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12



“I really wanna drive around Lakewood and run over every Jew with my car.”


The spin and deflection on this thread is astonishing.




Had she said cop instead of jew, I guarantee she'd be in jail and the naysayers here would be cheerleading for it.
edit on 6-2-2015 by IslandOfMisfitToys because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   
I can't find where it says her age in the story, all I can find is teenage. Is she 13 or 19?



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12


Would it be a terrorist threat if I said. " I really wanna drive around Lakewood and run over every Christian with my car"




No. Because "I want to" and "I'm going to" are two entirely different things.



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
a reply to: Shamrock6

He was charged with making terroristic threats and spent time in jail waiting be arraigned. A bit different than the OP. No?



False. He was arrested, and charged, and ordered released without bail all within 24 hours. He was then re-arrested and held without bail for failure to appear on an unrelated charge.

Facts n such



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: olaru12


Would it be a terrorist threat if I said. " I really wanna drive around Lakewood and run over every Christian with my car"




No. Because "I want to" and "I'm going to" are two entirely different things.


Semantic's And don't forget she had support on her twitter page. Could that be considered a conspiracy?



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
a reply to: Shamrock6

He was charged with making terroristic threats and spent time in jail waiting be arraigned. A bit different than the OP. No?



False. He was arrested, and charged, and ordered released without bail all within 24 hours. He was then re-arrested and held without bail for failure to appear on an unrelated charge.

Facts n such


Please explain how your "facts" differ from what I said.

Charged.....check

Spent time in jail.......check

Different from the girl in the OP.....check

What am I missing that you aren't?



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
She's a dumbarse of the worst kind, probably a bigot, and all around probably just a terrible human being. But I don't see where she broke any laws. There aren't (yet) any laws prohibiting antisemitism in the U.S., and putting a caption on a photo isn't exactly a terrorist threat.


Did you bother to read the article?

You don't consider this type of hate speech a threat? If you were Jewish...would you ???




“I really wanna drive around Lakewood and run over every Jew with my car.”


The spin and deflection on this thread is astonishing.

Would it be a terrorist threat if I said. " I really wanna drive around Lakewood and run over every Christian with my car"


No, it wouldn't be a terrorist threat. Now if she said "I'm GOING to drive around lakewood and runs over Christians with my car", that would be a threat. Is it a terrorist threat is some employee says on Twitter "Some days I just feel like dropping a nuke on my boss"?



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Unfortunately semantics matter. According to the Supreme Court what she said isnt an exemption of the free speech clause.

So, since it didn't violate the free speech clause and to my knowledge we don't have any laws pertaining to anti-Semitic speech, what should she have been charged with? Jerkiness? D-baggery?
edit on 6-2-2015 by Shamrock6 because: Oof. Big typo.



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Wow...that's messed up. Sounds like the father has a bit of explaining to do as well....kids like this typically don't fall far from the tree.

My guess is the dad is a real piece of $HI7 as well.


Wow. That sounds almost Klingon. The sins of one falls on the family. This isn't science fiction though. I can tell you that this cops son did a helluva lot worse than this in his teens. Dad knew about 10% of it. He wasn't happy with what he DID know.



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: IslandOfMisfitToys

If you think being held in booking is spending time in jail, then that would be the first difference that you can't see.

Was he arrested? Yea. And was cut loose and then not indicted, let alone convicted of anything. So basically your position is "well he was arrested for it but then let go and not put on trial, but in the interest of fairness we should arrest everybody who says something stupid and bigoted but isn't against the law." Okay, got it.

No law broken, but arrest them anyway because this one time this guy got arrested and then let go for doing the same thing and even though it wasn't illegal when he did it, it's not fair that he was arrested and other people weren't so we need to arrest others for not breaking the law!



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: olaru12

Unfortunately semantics matter. According to the Supreme Court what she said isnt an exemption of the free speech clause.

So, since it didn't violate the free speech clause and to my knowledge we don't have any laws pertaining to anti-Semitic speech, what should she have been charged with? Jerkiness? D-baggery?


I see what you mean...

www.americanbar.org...

I hope the social ramifications at her school will be called into play but she probably has plenty of support from the "Storm Front/White power" types. On the other hand her father should be questioned at length about his ideology, racism and ability to act responsibility and unbiased on the force. I'll bet he is quite unhappy with his daughter opening up this can of worms.

edit on 6-2-2015 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   
I think the point here isn't that a crime was committed, or maybe it is. Rather this seems to show a level of bias that once again favors certain individuals. When someone, whether they be adults or teenagers, make obnoxious posts on the internet they sometimes face consequences. And who they are certainly plays a role. Even the source article poses a valid point.

Who here would argue that had this been a Muslim, the results would be the same? How about what others have suggested. Who would argue that had the target been police officers and the person posting had no relations to law enforcement, the outcome would have been the same?

Do I believe a crime was committed here? No I do not.

Do I believe that decision is universal? No I do not. And I think that is the point.



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

I would agree if it was only one person.

Time to take your head out of the sand my friend.....

www.wsws.org...



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: olaru12


Would it be a terrorist threat if I said. " I really wanna drive around Lakewood and run over every Christian with my car"




No. Because "I want to" and "I'm going to" are two entirely different things.


Semantic's And don't forget she had support on her twitter page. Could that be considered a conspiracy?


In a courtroom, there is no such thing as semantics. Legally speaking, words mean something specifically. Its why, despite the nation rolling their eyes and mundane ridiculousness, Bill Clinton was able to parse out what "the meaning of is is".

Either she stated she was going to, or she didn't. And then from there, it would still be yet to be established as to if there was actually ever an intent.

Frankly, I don't want to live in a world where people can put words in your mouth, call it semantics, and drag you into a kangaroo court.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join