I find this sick and dont like where it is heading (ohio woman/idiot sign)

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by WhiteHat
 


To a degree your right, it is also about the OP's interpretation of the law.

The law states that people on both sides of the road must stop when a school bus is stopped with it's flashers on, which was the case in this. I believe that the usaul norm is 50 feet.

So it is about the kids, the school bus and this womans blatant disregard for the law.



When did I say anything about that law (besides the 8th amendment)? This whole thread is about the violation of the 8th amendment




posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by WhiteHat

 




So Judge McKenzie, who was going to sentence him, offered the kid two choices: either go to jail for ten days or walk in front of the store from which he stole for four days while carrying a sign that lets people know what he did. The kid, foregoing this right to an attorney, chooses the latter option. So for four days, this kid carries a sign saying: “I stole from this store and am walking due to an order by Judge McKenzie.”




hahso.wordpress.com...

As a business owner I would rather see someone carry out a punishment like this then end up in jail -convict school- only to come out probably more eager to do additional crimes.

-

I would be cordial to the person during the punishment too. To show them they shouldn't be taking from someone who had no ill intent against them.

-

The driver is the same case. The parents should have all gone down there to talk to her too, rationally, and voice their opinion. Judging by her (supposed) behaviour during court and otherwise however, I'm not sure if they would have gotten through.
edit on 13-11-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask

Originally posted by lobotomizemecapin

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask

Originally posted by lobotomizemecapin
reply to post by alfa1
 


oh my this woman drove on an obviously empty sidewalk where if someone had been walking they would be easily avoided. Stupid but does not warrant the blatant violation of her rights


bet you wouldnt feel that way if your child or family member got hit.........

p.s. what rights of hers did he violate?
edit on 13-11-2012 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)


I have posted it several times............

look up the definition of cruel and unusual punishment


already did, the woman chose the punishment..... and if you think this is cruel and unusual, you need to get thicker skin......how have you lived this long.......next?


the alternative sentence that she chose should have never been offered. I mean obviously anyone would choose the latter rather than a harsh sentence.

Public humiliation was outlawed for a reason and does not need to be brought back.

youre a fool if you dont see that



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by lobotomizemecapin

Originally posted by WhiteHat


Just a note, I would have never wear that sign, no matter what I would have done, and what that judge would say.
edit on 13-11-2012 by WhiteHat because: (no reason given)


Thank you finally someone who has the ability to read

I tip my hat to you good sir


What I am seeing here is that no one should pay for their crimes.

So what you are saying, correct me if I’m wrong…I’m ok with that, is…

You would rather pay a hefty fine anonymously and feel free to do so again and again, as long as the rest of us don't know about the crimes previously committed.

Because, you know, being caught for committing a crime should not be humiliating.

It’s all good.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by lobotomizemecapin

Originally posted by Neopan100
reply to post by lobotomizemecapin
 


unacceptable to whom? It sounds to me like everyone involved is accepting of the punishment except the woman that got caught..I think if everyone is in agreement then the deed should be done...

Too bad that doesn't work for pedophiles..I think most people (myself) included think they should be hung high in the town square and left to rot. Cruel and unusual...pffffft....



Right there is a good point we dont make them wear signs... Why should this woman be granted less rights as a US citizen than murderers and sex offenders?


REALLY.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by lobotomizemecapin

When did I say anything about that law (besides the 8th amendment)? This whole thread is about the violation of the 8th amendment


Please tell me again and again and again how her 8th amendment rights were violated?

SHE choose the sentence.

Your interpretation is just to loose.

Using your own interpretation no one would go to jail, or be sentenced to community service or fined...because that would possibly embarrass them.

Her rights were not violated in any means, way or form.

I'm starting to think that this thread is actually about something else.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by WhiteHat

 




So Judge McKenzie, who was going to sentence him, offered the kid two choices: either go to jail for ten days or walk in front of the store from which he stole for four days while carrying a sign that lets people know what he did. The kid, foregoing this right to an attorney, chooses the latter option. So for four days, this kid carries a sign saying: “I stole from this store and am walking due to an order by Judge McKenzie.”




hahso.wordpress.com...

As a business owner I would rather see someone carry out a punishment like this then end up in jail -convict school- only to come out probably more eager to do additional crimes.

-

I would be cordial to the person during the punishment too. To show them they shouldn't be taking from someone who had no ill intent against them.

-

The driver is the same case. The parents should have all gone down there to talk to her too, rationally, and voice their opinion. Judging by her (supposed) behaviour during court and otherwise however, I'm not sure if they would have gotten through.
edit on 13-11-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)


I get your point. Still, your example is about a kid, and the hope of giving him a chance to learn the lesson.
In the OP is about a full grown woman, well aware about what she was doing wrong, since it wasn't the first time when she was caught. Did she learned the lesson? So what is the point of that sign, if not humiliation?

Maybe she agreed to that, maybe she got out cheaper than with jail time; my point is that this kind of punishment is not appropriate for a grown up, dignified human being, even when it's acting like an idiot. I'm sure not everyone in her place would stay there wearing that sign and laughing.
edit on 13-11-2012 by WhiteHat because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikellmikell
Some people are thick as a brick and I think the judge may have noticed that. Probably won't pass a buss again. treating criminals nicey nice has gotten us into this mess she got punnishment her parents couldn't give her. Hope more judges act like the parents they took the rights away from


I agree, and I think this is one small case that actually doesn't deserve a thread or debate about it. The woman was a tool, and the judge thought of an interesting way to get the point across not only to the perpetrator, but to the kids who witnessed it all, and to all the other equally idiotic people out there who do the same kind of thing.

I think this is a great way to kill several birds with one stone, it didn't cost anything more than a usual case, the woman got off relatively lightly, and potentially millions of people heard about it


If anything, I would suggest that judge should be rewarded for thinking outside the box and using her position more wisely and creatively than thousands of her colleagues ever do!



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
I don't know, it's weird but I think maybe they could have thrown a tougher sentence on her.

as in never having a DL again.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by MmmPie
 


so tell me how is that in any way comparing this woman to murderers?



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by lobotomizemecapin
 


Yeah well "Life is hard, it's even harder when you're Stupid"

I suppose the judge could have convicted her of reckless endangerment on individual counts for each and every child on the bus and put her in prison and completely destroy her life for a long period of time. But Yeah way overstepped his authority on this one....#End Sarcasm



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   
If you are going on and on about the punishment and the 8th amendment well I think this clarifies cruel and unusual punishment in regards to the law.

"There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is 'cruel and unusual'."

The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture.
"A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion."
"A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."
"A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary."

Justice Brennan also wrote that he expected no state would pass a law obviously violating any one of these principles, so court decisions regarding the Eighth Amendment would involve a "cumulative" analysis of the implication of each of the four principles. In this way, the United States Supreme Court "set the standard that a punishment would be cruel and unusual [,if] it was too severe for the crime, [if] it was arbitrary, if it offended society's sense of justice, or if it was not more effective than a less severe penalty."
en.wikipedia.org...

So making her stand out in the open (which the kids do when they cross) is exposure.
It made her vulnerable to a possible reckless driver (god forbid that should happen).
Is wearing a sign really that cruel that it can be in the same league as torture?

I don't see it as a violation of the 8th amendment.
I see it as a judge trying to make an impression on a very selfish individual.

Notice the type of school bus. There was a kid in a wheel chair. Do you have any idea how long it takes to assist a handicap person off of a vehicle.
She did this on a regular basis.
She is actually lucky that she never hurt anyone driving like that. But hopefully this display may have prevented a tragedy.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   
You're relating a woman who drove on the sidewalk to people that killed another human or committed a sex offense....and asking why she should have less rights than these types of criminals...


How are they even on the same level?


Stupid comparison, along with this thread.


COOOOOOOL! Some random lady drove on the sidewalk and had to hold a sign. I was at the bar a few weeks ago and watched a guy get a DUI while driving his motorcycle through the bar!


Insignificant thread is insignificant. How this got to four pages is beyond me. How it got any flags is beyond me...



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex

Originally posted by lobotomizemecapin

When did I say anything about that law (besides the 8th amendment)? This whole thread is about the violation of the 8th amendment


Please tell me again and again and again how her 8th amendment rights were violated?

SHE choose the sentence.

Your interpretation is just to loose.

Using your own interpretation no one would go to jail, or be sentenced to community service or fined...because that would possibly embarrass them.

Her rights were not violated in any means, way or form.

I'm starting to think that this thread is actually about something else.


How is that the same.

The judge put this woman on the streets and in front of millions of people wearing an idiot sign.

the two are obviously not the same

how many counts of reckless endangerment, reckless driving, and driving through a bus stop did this woman rack up. she should be charged in accordance with the law not by the whim of a judge that obviously has an agenda and is using stuff like this to get public opinion to work away at our rights



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by MmmPie
You're relating a woman who drove on the sidewalk to people that killed another human or committed a sex offense....and asking why she should have less rights than these types of criminals...


How are they even on the same level?


Stupid comparison, along with this thread.


COOOOOOOL! Some random lady drove on the sidewalk and had to hold a sign. I was at the bar a few weeks ago and watched a guy get a DUI while driving his motorcycle through the bar!


Insignificant thread is insignificant. How this got to four pages is beyond me. How it got any flags is beyond me...


If you could comprehend what I was saying you would see that that statement very clearly states that people who have committed acts as atrocious as murder or rape do not even have to go through this type of public humiliation and they have their rights protected when it comes to public humiliation.

And yet an idiot of a woman does not have equal rights even compared to monsters like the above stated?

Now read that carefully and you may just realize how silly you sound right now



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by obnoxiouschick
If you are going on and on about the punishment and the 8th amendment well I think this clarifies cruel and unusual punishment in regards to the law.

"There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is 'cruel and unusual'."

The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture.
"A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion."
"A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."
"A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary."

Justice Brennan also wrote that he expected no state would pass a law obviously violating any one of these principles, so court decisions regarding the Eighth Amendment would involve a "cumulative" analysis of the implication of each of the four principles. In this way, the United States Supreme Court "set the standard that a punishment would be cruel and unusual [,if] it was too severe for the crime, [if] it was arbitrary, if it offended society's sense of justice, or if it was not more effective than a less severe penalty."
en.wikipedia.org...

So making her stand out in the open (which the kids do when they cross) is exposure.
It made her vulnerable to a possible reckless driver (god forbid that should happen).
Is wearing a sign really that cruel that it can be in the same league as torture?

I don't see it as a violation of the 8th amendment.
I see it as a judge trying to make an impression on a very selfish individual.

Notice the type of school bus. There was a kid in a wheel chair. Do you have any idea how long it takes to assist a handicap person off of a vehicle.
She did this on a regular basis.
She is actually lucky that she never hurt anyone driving like that. But hopefully this display may have prevented a tragedy.





The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity,"


your quote does not conflict with what I am saying in the least

how is putting a woman in an idiot sign in front of millions not degrading?



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by lobotomizemecapin
 


....and as stated before she was the one that chose to go this route. Sooooooo......technically she stripped herself of her own rights.


wait, why am I still in this thread....

edit on 13-11-2012 by MmmPie because: Just remembered how stupid this thread is...



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by lobotomizemecapin
 


If that Judges agenda is to not only teach that woman a lesson, but everybody reading this thread, seeing it on the news or just passing by.

I'm all for it.


No rights were threatened in this case, nor were any lost. Not one thing was unconstitutional about this sentence.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by MmmPie
reply to post by lobotomizemecapin
 


....and as stated before she was the one that chose to go this route. Sooooooo......technically she stripped herself of her own rights.


wait, why am I still in this thread....

edit on 13-11-2012 by MmmPie because: Just remembered how stupid this thread is...


The point is that it should not have been offered to begin with.

why are you still here?



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by lobotomizemecapin
The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity,"


your quote does not conflict with what I am saying in the least

how is putting a woman in an idiot sign in front of millions not degrading?


Do you think she thinks she's an idiot?
She probably thinks she's smart as hell that's why she was laughing.
Thinking she got caught once but got away with it many more times.

Seriously she's probably very narcissistic and truly doesn't think of herself as an "idiot"

An idiot, dolt, or dullard is a mentally deficient person, or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way. The similar terms moron, imbecile, and cretin have all gained specialized meanings in modern times. An idiot is said to be idiotic, and to suffer from idiocy. A dunce is an idiot who is specifically incapable of learning.
en.wikipedia.org...
Maybe it should've been dunce since she obviously doesn't learn a lesson well.

It would be embarrassing/ humiliating if it was true. She doesn't think she's an idiot so the level of humiliation drops a few notches.





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join