Lawmakers Trying To Pass Bill Exempting Politicians From Arrest And Prosecution For Corruption

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: CloudsTasteMetallic

There's one penalty for corruption they cannot evade...assassination.

All the bent laws in the world won't prevent a disgruntled citizen from exacting their own justice on these freaks, which in my view is exactly what will begin to happen if they passed a law like this. Citizens will be taking out the rubbish their own way. If the law doesn't work, people find alternatives.

Allow a law preventing prosecution of corrupt politicians? You'd need your heads tested first.

Politicians are amongst the most corrupt in society, it'd be like Hitler being immune from prosecution at Nuremberg, if he'd lived.

I like the way you think, to a degree... Such actions as you suggest, I can't personally agree with.

Personally, I'd love to see a return to the simpler times of criminal punishment.

A day or two of public shaming in the stocks at the public square (which, in modern times would be what... Wal-Mart, I guess? Sigh.)

Tar and Feathers seemed pretty effective throughout history as well... Not so much with our current vacations to a minimum security Club Fed.

originally posted by: DarthFazer
a reply to: CloudsTasteMetallic

Oklahoma is passing a law to ban protesters from wearing masks "guy fawkes" as well as "hoods" yes , that is right hooded sweat shirts and comic book heroes are a threat to the order of things in Oklahoma. Quite a draconian government there apparently. They will tax cubic feet of oxygen breathed by its citizens in no time.

Boy am I getting tired of debunking this "ZOMG No hoodies LAW!!!1!!1!" meme. But I continue to do so. This falsehood was propagated by HuffPost and the likes, as poorly researched click-bait.

Fun Fact: I live in OK, and earlier today had the audacity to put up the hood on my coat, in public. And... nothing happened. However, it is a near-universal common courtesy around here to take your hood down when entering a store, so as to put employees at ease and not look like you're about to rob the place. YMMV.

Learning time! Here goes:

The Oklahoma “Hoodie Ban” Law Is Not What You Think It Is

Several news outlets published articles in the last few days with a similar headline on a proposed amendment to an Oklahoma law. Just one problem, though. The existing law already potentially punishes hoodie-wearers with up to a $500 fine.

Time, ThinkProgress, Huffington Post, Fusion and Uproxx all aggregated their information from the same local sources: Channel 4 and Channel 6. Both of these local news articles are highly speculative and neglect to clearly lay out the facts. Wearing hoodies while committing a crime has been illegal in Oklahoma since the 1920s.

The original law, established in 1923, says it is unlawful for any person in Oklahoma “to wear a mask, hood or covering, which conceals the identity of the wearer during the commission of a crime or for the purpose of coercion, intimidation or harassment.” It was intended as a deterrent against the then-ascendent Ku Klux Klan.

So... The Internet news cycle decided to manufacture outrage over an attempt to add one word to a law already on the books for 92 YEARS and everyone seems to have bought it hook, line, and sinker. Deny ignorance, indeed. Let's continue.

The revision proposed in December would add a provision making it illegal for anyone “to intentionally conceal his or her identity in a public place by means of a robe, mask, or other disguise.” The amendment just adds the “intentional” aspect.

The amendment does add fuel to the fire if a racist cop wants to arrest a man for wearing a hoodie, but it does not make it automatically illegal and punishable with a fine of up to $500 to wear a hoodie, as so many news outlets suggest. Moreover, it may be legally impossible to convict someone wearing a hoodie under the current law, as “intent” is a very tricky word.

The amendment excludes people wearing the mask, hood or covering because of weather, religious beliefs, parades or Halloween celebrations.

One group, however, could find themselves in some rather deep water with the repurposed law: protesters. As we’ve seen in recent demonstrations from Occupy Wall Street to the nationwide response to the Michael Brown and Eric Garner killings, protesters are covering their faces more so than ever before—members of Anonymous in particular. Under this extension of the existing law, such demonstrators would be committing a crime simply by showing up. While the original law targeted a different kind of political activist—KKK members—its new iteration could put more progressive demonstrators in the crosshairs.

Why not, They all ready get away with most things as is, such a thing would just point out a need for revolution and such.

Wow, with all the other laws that should focus on the economy to benefit everyone, they've conceived this lawmaker-centered proposal. Unimaginable.

a reply to: CloudsTasteMetallic

That is a really stupid, vapid set of laws, designed for abuse. Why an amendment to change one word?

a reply to: MOMof3

So.... You support the KKK? I kid, i kid. Not gonna get into the typical outrageous ATS-style argument.

Guessing you're speaking about the so-called "hoodie-ban" law... In my opinion, and after speaking to acquaintances (both former and current Law Enforcement) about it, it would most likely be whats considered an "enhancement" charge.

For example, say someone goes into a store, and commits an armed robbery. During the act, they wear a mask, or hood up, with the intent to conceal their identity from surveillance cameras and/or eye witnesses.

Now, when they go to court, this "hoodie law" would be yet another charge that could be pursued in addition to any other major charges they would face.

It's definitely not the "OMG you'll get tackled and arrested for just wearing a hoodie!!" the media has made it out to be. Fact-based reporting just doesn't generate the same web based pay-per-page-view ad revenue as compared to sensationalist click-bait.

a reply to: CloudsTasteMetallic

I was told just checking your Credit Score lowers your score. In this circumstance, politicians just attempting to bring up a bill excluding politicians from being prosecuted when they do something wrong should call for a prison sentence. And by something wrong, I mean not something the crooks in Congress made legal to save their own asses or cover up embarrassing antics they are sooooo good at accomplishing, which is something they rarely seem to do otherwise.

a reply to: CloudsTasteMetallic

How the language is written in law is extremely important and I am sure you know that.

But, I get it. Games, just games.

a reply to: CloudsTasteMetallic

I say good. If they pass it then there will be no viable legal means of justice. Then at that point when there is a grievance we will just have to enact mob justice. In that situation I not only condone it but would encourage it.

The balls these people have...

All jest aside though I am not kidding, they have shown their true colors. They arent responsible men of reason...no. They say to hell with order and progress because we need mafia style impunity.

Ok. The neighborhood is yours captain. Just remember that a block taken is a block forever contested and fought over. Criminals DIE when they are untouchable. Prison is a blessing for some criminals. Especially for the bosses.

a reply to: CloudsTasteMetallic

I have better ideal, pass a law to make it open season on any of them caught doing some thing illegal, bad, like being a pedophile.

Or not fulfilling campaign lies.

a reply to: CloudsTasteMetallic

Hell they already are ....Now they just want it in writing.

Look we all know this system is a joke the only thing that will ever set man free again now that the american
experiment is coming to a close is Jesus or violence lol our forfathers did not become free men by whaaa whaaa
whaaa and if a politicain was too corrupt and too powerful to charge then he was usually killed .
Not just in this country look at the french revolution

a reply to: CloudsTasteMetallic

omg! This bill passed on March 11!

Oklahoma House passes bill restricting marriage to people of faith

Read more: www.patheos.com...

This is downright horrible.
Just saw the story, and did an ATS search for it. Wow. I'm blown away.

You get what you pay for.

a reply to: olaru12

AND STILL....NOT about a party but WHAT they do .

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: olaru12

AND STILL....NOT about a party but WHAT they do .

Not about party? Who sponsored the damn bill? GOP elitist, that who!!!
I'm always astonished by those that support arrogance of spirit and will.

Not a great way to keep anykind of credibility....it must be the c2h5oh that corrupts the heart or perhaps that Rush Limbaugh Koolaid.

a reply to: olaru12

Hmm, doesn't this site have a Tea Party contingent who are vocal who always protest this sort of thing, yet when a Republican or the GOP ramrods this sort of trash through the legislature, they suddenly grow spineless and silent?

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

No we are the ones who are yelling LOUDER but since we are a threat to BOTH prties they want us DONE.
BOTH parties are tag teaming us plain and simple to those who see the obvious.
The left is myopic and the right is psychotic AND knows HOW to keep secrets.
IT IS bull@@it as well.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Yet time after time, when Republicans do something like this, the response from the TP factions... is deafening silence.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Hmm, doesn't this site have a Tea Party contingent who are vocal who always protest this sort of thing, yet when a Republican or the GOP ramrods this sort of trash through the legislature, they suddenly grow spineless and silent?

Yep! This site does have that contingent, indeed. (And recently some of those 'leaners that way' are whining that ATS has become a "leftist echo chamber." They like to add in lots of pseudo-news and laughy-faces while they're at it.)

Blows my mind.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

IT IS bull so nope.
the everyman IS against it.