Gee Whiz: Mom Gets ($2,500) Fine After Toddler Pees in Yard [UPDATED]

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
I'd sure hate to be a postman in your neighbourhood.... Or someone lost and asking for directions. You Americans can be an extreme and unreasonable sort, sometimes.


I'm not american. Nothing unreasonable about it.

My land, my family. If you're on my land you're a danger to my family.

Besides, if you scale a 7ft wall, topped with razor blades you're not looking for directions.

Next door neighbour's family had two bravo males with screwdrivers and tyre irons visiting last week.




posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by harryhaller
 


Ah yes, I see now. A South African. That would explain the 7ft wall and razor blades, so I am guessing you are a White S.African? That would go some way to explaining your paranoia and way over the top response.

However, in the civilised world, killing someone for merely having the audacity to "be on your property" is considered a somewhat extreme response and it is disturbing you would dispense with another humans life so flippantly without even PID'ing the target and asking what they want.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
However, in the civilised world, killing someone for merely having the audacity to "be on your property" is considered a somewhat extreme response and it is disturbing you would dispense with another humans life so flippantly without even PID'ing the target and asking what they want.


Ah you poms, can't ever stop your snobbery over anyone else. Or your ignorance


But then, you poms have invaded over 90% of all countries out there, so don't talk to me about property rights. Natives the world over asked what you wanted when you just marched onto THEIR land, what did they get for their troubles? Ask Haiti perhaps?
Clearly it's YOUR property that concerns you, not anyone else's.

And then the audacity to talk about "civilised world". Go to Brighton, or something you barbarous heathen.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by harryhaller
 


90%? Hardly.. If you're going to whinge about colonialism, I'd look closer to home. After all, as a white South African, your ancestors did precisely that which your now accusing us "Poms" of doing. And I have no idea what Haiti has to do with anything, it was a French colony.

Besides, all that was decades, if not centuries ago and it's not as if the British were the only ones doing it, nor is it anything to do with me. It's always the default fallback position for anyone arguing against a Brit, whether it has anything to do with the discussion or not.

Anyhoo, all that aside, it is still incredible you would defend killing another human being merely for being on your property without ascertaining why they are there. What a truly lovely person you must be.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

90%? Hardly.. If you're going to whinge about colonialism, I'd look closer to home. After all, as a white South African, your ancestors did precisely that which your now accusing us "Poms" of doing. And I have no idea what Haiti has to do with anything, it was a French colony.


Regarding 90%:



Of nearly 200 countries worldwide, Britain had invaded 90 per cent of them, either by colonisation, war or an armed presence of some sort. Indeed, it was easier to sum up by listing the few nations we hadn't touched – mainly the likes of Chad, Tajikistan and other places that colonial powers either weren't bothered about having, or perhaps simply never realised were there.
blogs.t elegraph.co.uk


Right, so you are ignorant.

Secondly, my next door neighbour has his skull cracked while lying in his bed last week, please explain how i am either paranoid or over the top. His mother (over 70) was admitted to hospital after being battered. The children were also severely traumatised.

Would you like a discussion of how "my ancestors" were bought off by the royals? Would you like a discussion of the south african freemasons who betrayed their country to the enemy?? Would you like a discussion on how the reserve bank implemented shortly after the brutal murder of half a country to ensure economic control that has lasted over a century?



Link
The settlement of Yacanagua was burnt to the ground three times in its just over a century long existence as a Spanish settlement, first by French pirates in 1543, again on 27 May 1592 by a 110 strong landing party from a 4 ship English naval squadron led by Christopher Newport in his flagship Golden Dragon, who destroyed all 150 houses in the settlement


Ignorant again. Everyone is doing it so it's ok. Your words. Savages.

You blame MY "ancestors" and then wash your hands of yours? Lovely. Your ex-pm is wanted for crimes against humanity, your current pm is working hard for the same honour. Not only your ancestors, your bleeding PEERS.



Amnesty International criticised what it described as a "deeply-disturbing trade-off" between trade and strategic interests and the promotion of rights and democratic reform. The Campaign Against the Arms Trade condemned what it called "a very clear UK message of support for these authoritarian regimes". Promoting arms sales meant concerns about human rights were "empty words," it added.
www.guardian.co.uk


Warmongering criminals. And you have the nerve to pretend to being "civilised"?

"default fallback position"??? LOL, same as the anc crying "racism" every second hour lately. Pathetic.

Now either engage or sod off, but your pithy little responses are embarrasing.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


For my family no, but for some people's familes.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by harryhaller
 


Anyway.........

I can see you clearly have a massive chip on your shoulder and wish to derail the thread completely. Feel free to start your own thread about British colonialism, if it grates you so. I am not going to play into your little diversionary tactics but will happily engage you in debate if you start the correct topic.

Point of fact, when I said "in the civilised world" that wasn't to say we're civilised and you're not, but rather generally speaking, it is considered bad form to shoot someone simply for being on your property, no matter where in the world you might be and those that think it is OK to kill another human being for such a trivial matter can (and rightly so) be considered uncivilised, no matter what history lessons you think you are giving.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 04:50 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by harryhaller
 


Perceived position? It was bloody clear! Anyone on your property uninvited dies, no equivocation allowed. If you make such a statement, expect to get called on it. I doubt I am alone in thinking such behaviour as "uncivilised", in fact, it is downright barbaric.

You clearly don't like being challenged nor having dissenting opinion (which is all any of us really has on here) pushed your way and expect me to shut up because I won't bite into your clear attempt at derailment. I have plenty to say on the matter of colonialism, however, this is not the correct thread for such a discussion.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 05:06 AM
link   
This story reeks of an officer who is above and beyond mentally challenged. Do you doubt that there are mentally challenged officers on the streets giving tickets for the most absurd things? I do not hate cops at all, many do a fine job, but many are way on the low IQ scale, so low that they do things like this. Only a mentally challenged individual, bored out of their mind, would say to themselves, "hey I see someone breaking the law, hooray for me", that is pretty much the mentality of the mentally challenged officer in this case. Someone who knows the letter of the law, but someone who is too dense to understand the spirit of the law.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 05:11 AM
link   
I admit he's three but whoever decided to attempt to make him urinate on the front lawn in all it's "Pee Pee" glory should Definitely have some form of punishment, though 2500$ is far too steep in my honest opinion.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by harryhaller
 


Perceived position? It was bloody clear! Anyone on your property uninvited dies, no equivocation allowed. If you make such a statement, expect to get called on it. I doubt I am alone in thinking such behaviour as "uncivilised", in fact, it is downright barbaric.

You clearly don't like being challenged nor having dissenting opinion (which is all any of us really has on here) pushed your way and expect me to shut up because I won't bite into your clear attempt at derailment. I have plenty to say on the matter of colonialism, however, this is not the correct thread for such a discussion.


Perceived position as a white male. You're making more assumptions there, you should be careful of those.

I enjoy a challenge, you clearly are not.

The pig had no rights on that property, not without a warrant. That is civilisation.

Trespassing, assault, intimidation, those were his crimes. The 3 year old peed. Outside.




posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by zonetripper2065
Never thought I'd see people pretending they have never peed outside, your liars and hypocrites and from here on out should be disregarded as being full of it



Now now now if god had wanted us to pee outside, he wouldn't have given us toilets now would he.

Silly.

Oh, hang on.. uhh..



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 05:28 AM
link   
Other crap aside....


Originally posted by harryhaller
The pig had no rights on that property, not without a warrant. That is civilisation.


Actually, an officer (no matter the jurisdiction) does not require a warrant in certain circumstances, such as seeing an offence being committed, or if there is an immediate danger etc. The fact, however, you refer to them as "pigs" displays a predisposed position against the Police on your part. In this case, he witnessed an offence being committed and had just cause to "enter the property", not that he did as it was on the front lawn.


Originally posted by harryhaller
Trespassing, assault, intimidation, those were his crimes.


Who, the Officer? How was it trespass, or assault, let alone intimidation?


Originally posted by harryhaller
The 3 year old peed. Outside.



It wasn't so much that he peed outside, but rather the circumstances that would appear to have led up to this and the child actively being encouraged to do so. You can't look at this out of context. I agree, the fine was excessive, but as this is the US I assume there is a right to refuse such a fine and contest it in court along the lines of the Bill of Rights.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
crap






Actually, an officer (no matter the jurisdiction) does not require a warrant in certain circumstances, such as seeing an offence being committed, or if there is an immediate danger etc.


Please show where it is an offense for a 3 year old to pee in a garden. Anywhere. Earth, the universe, anywhere?



The fact, however, you refer to them as "pigs" displays a predisposed position against the Police on your part.


That i call them pigs suggests that i know civilisation, and the freeedoms of speech generally associated with it. Don't you?



as it was on the front lawn.


I'll remember that a lawn is not on the property next time. Is it a public park maybe?



Who, the Officer? How was it trespass, or assault, let alone intimidation?






the circumstances that would appear


Circumstantial evidence isn't allowed in law. One of those "civilised" things.



I assume


Again?



there is a right to refuse such a fine and contest it in court along the lines of the Bill of Rights.



No.
edit on 9-11-2012 by harryhaller because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 06:27 AM
link   
the answer to this situation seems to be profoundly indicative of my signature.


"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." Krishnamurti

anyone who feels a 2500 dollar fine is just for this women, fits quite well into that saying above.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   
Having read the article there and the responses can be stated:

After reading and giving thought to the matter both are wrong and right in their assessment of the situation.
The mother is correct, this is a toddler, and toddlers are going to pretty much be toddlers. They are not potty trained, they are not able to hold their bladders or make determinations as to when they have to go, they just do. However, the officer is correct that the child should not be going in the front yard. Most front yards are in view of the public and that is in itself a danger to the child. With all of the different kinds of people out there, would you want your child exposing himself to some stranger? Or where the potential for some one who could molest your child be watching or even worse take your child?

The officer went a bit over board on the ticket, yes, but at the same time, based off of what could be stated, or not stated, as there was no indication, is what was the mothers reaction when the officer stopped and knocked on the door or approached her about such. If she blew up and started to get irate or even have no manners, It appears that it escalated badly and ultimately that the officer issued a ticket based off of what all transpired. But there is one other little detail that is over looked, the actual law in the state of Oklahoma as follows:

A. Every person who willfully and knowingly either:
1. Lewdly exposes his or her person or genitals in any public place, or in any place where there are present other persons to be offended or annoyed thereby; provided, however, for purposes of this section, a person alleged to have committed an act of public urination shall be prosecuted pursuant to Section 22 of this title unless such act was accompanied with another act that violates paragraphs 2 through 4 of this subsection and shall not be subject to registration under the Sex Offenders Registration Act;
2. Procures, counsels, or assists any person to expose such person, or to make any other exhibition of such person to public view or to the view of any number of persons, for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer;
3. Writes, composes, stereotypes, prints, photographs, designs, copies, draws, engraves, paints, molds, cuts, or otherwise prepares, publishes, sells, distributes, keeps for sale, knowingly downloads on a computer, or exhibits any obscene material or child pornography; or
4. Makes, prepares, cuts, sells, gives, loans, distributes, keeps for sale, or exhibits any disc record, metal, plastic, or wax, wire or tape recording, or any type of obscene material or child pornography,

shall be guilty, upon conviction, of a felony and shall be punished by the imposition of a fine of not less than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) nor more than Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) or by imprisonment for not less than thirty (30) days nor more than ten (10) years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

So while the officer and the situation may seem wrong, the law is very clear cut in this case.
The final question has to be asked: Had the young child not been in full public view at the time, then would this have been a news worth event?



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   
The truth is something like this. confrontation between the officer and lady. Because she asked him why he is always parking in the same spot . Cop replied with something like I'll park where I dam well please. And the was a complaint she filed that wasn't accepted somewhere and this was the cops attempt to intimidate and get a little revenge.

The case was dropped by d.a. Officer got a slap on wrist.

If her son 15 or so the revenge would have taken the form of a sex crime charge that wouldn't have gone away so quickly or with such a light tone.

eta sdcigar you are nuts to believe that it is not safe for a child to be in a front yard. Typical American fear brainwashing. How bout the officer charged for paying such close attention to the bathroom acts of three year old.
You have to be watching pretty close to see that. Again the truth is its just a cop getting revenge.
edit on 9-11-2012 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
the actual law in the state of Oklahoma as follows:

A. Every person who willfully and knowingly either:


Excellent post, thanks


A 3 year old is not legally a person yet. A person is generally regarded as legal entity.

"lewdly exposes" ... yeah, kids are right creepy, waving their willies around




posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by harryhaller

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
the actual law in the state of Oklahoma as follows:

A. Every person who willfully and knowingly either:


Excellent post, thanks


A 3 year old is not legally a person yet. A person is generally regarded as legal entity.

"lewdly exposes" ... yeah, kids are right creepy, waving their willies around



yeah the boy didn't want to go in the house because obviously he was smoking a cigar and trying to get his spread for the weekend football games done on his tablet.

it's not ok for police to act like vigilantes and use revenge as a basis for treating citizens this way. that makes them not so unlike your average thug.





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join