Here' Yer Day In Court A-Hole!

Discussion in 'The Club House' started by Vikingdad, Oct 26, 2012.

  1. Vikingdad

    Vikingdad New Member

    14,922
    0
    0
  2. TWMIM

    TWMIM New Member

    1,005
    0
    0
    If you can't get enough, because I know I sure can't.....

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkwxkvNRMZ0&feature=related[/ame]
     

  3. Vikingdad

    Vikingdad New Member

    14,922
    0
    0
    You need to get the "Stop. Please." in there too!
     
  4. Dillinger

    Dillinger New Member

    23,972
    1
    0
    LMFAO!!!!

    Oh, I needed that today. Suck it you little activist bitch!
     
  5. BeyondTheBox

    BeyondTheBox New Member

    2,630
    0
    0
    I guess I don't understand what's so "gotcha" here.
     
  6. Mason609

    Mason609 New Member

    1,850
    0
    0
    They should have tazed him again when he kept talking....
     
  7. Blueguns

    Blueguns New Member

    1,931
    0
    0
    That would be the wrong way to protest. This guy was really asking for it. I understand he wants to stand up for his rights, but he's making everyone else's job difficult in the process.
     
  8. Vikingdad

    Vikingdad New Member

    14,922
    0
    0
    Huh? :confused:
     
  9. TWMIM

    TWMIM New Member

    1,005
    0
    0
    You see these alot, there's a fine line.

    Youtube is full of open carry protests. Some guys do it right, must have been for some time, because the LEOs of whatever town they film in are up on the law, and that was the point. There's a stop, evryone is pleasant, and life is good.

    Then there's always the guy who wants to get into a pissing contest with the LEO, get confrontational, and sets the movement back 50 years.

    The guy in this video went beyond the call. He was an obnoxious ass, he refused to give his name while demanding everybody elses, and at the point where he got lit up, he was trying to push past dude in the door.

    Don't know what he was trying to prove, other than what a whinging little turd he was.
     
  10. Vikingdad

    Vikingdad New Member

    14,922
    0
    0
    I don't agree with what this guy was doing or the way he went about it, but I do wonder why it is that in this day and age we don't have cameras installed in courtrooms and public access to all feeds? The feeds could be accessed by all of the media outlets and anyone who wanted to see what is going on in any given courtroom in the nation. In high profile cases all news media outlets would have equal access to the exact same footage and could use whatever camera angles they want to use. In really high profile cases where, say, the jury is sequestered then the feeds would be restricted, or access would be given after a certain period of time.

    At the same time I do understand why they do restrict people from bringing cameras into the courtroom as they are a distraction. This guy just proved that.
     
  11. BeyondTheBox

    BeyondTheBox New Member

    2,630
    0
    0
    Exactly. Why's this worth posting. Was the guy right, are there no laws against taping in court? If so he's a pioneer poking holes in an already very swisscheesed system and I aplaud him for furthering the effort.

    If he was wrong, why did the idiot "badges" let him in with the camera? Then, furthermore, why'd they not site statute and warn him he could be arested for his actions? Then, why didn't they arest him?

    Seems to me that if he were in the wrong or even right, the "authorities" handeled everything extremely poor and should be shown for their ignorances.

    Am I wrong here?
     
  12. astroman

    astroman Supporting Member Supporter

    628
    1
    0
    that dipsh!t was asking for it - go looking for trouble, and you are sure to find it...
     
  13. Vikingdad

    Vikingdad New Member

    14,922
    0
    0
    To answer your first question, its worth posting because most everybody enjoys a good Tazing!:D

    To answe the other questions it depends on what state the guy was in at the time. Different states have different laws covering cameras in the courtroom. In California you must have permission from the Judge beforehand (a couple of days I think) and only one still camera and one TV camera is allowed. The media must arrange pooling the images independent of the court (failing to allow access to all media would probably cause the Judge to revoke permission). There is a law covering this, but I don't happen to know the code for it.

    It appears to me in the recording that the guy turned off his camera, entered the courtroom, then began recording again, probably because the deputies told him he could not record inside the courtroom. It was pretty obvious that he was going to be a pain in the ass from the get-go, so I have no sympathy for him whatsoever. Whatever his motives were he went about it in the wrong way and defeated the purpose.

    Mr. Zappy makes you unhappy!

    Zap! Zap! = "Stop! Please!"
     
  14. BeyondTheBox

    BeyondTheBox New Member

    2,630
    0
    0
    Still don't get the post nor the responses.

    The only people in the wrong are the "badges" in this situation. Unknowledgable and improperly handled. Here's why I say that, and if I'm wrong I'd love to be educated as to why. It's very possible I'm missing something here:

    If it's illegal to record in court it's the duty of the officers to state such and place him under arest for not complying. Unless they have no aithority to arest. In which case they shouldn't even be there.

    If it's not illegal, he was within his rights to do exactly what he did and that's all that matters, rendering the point of this post and its supportive replies as incompetent and ignorant as the "badges" in the video.

    Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't have risked pooping my pants being tased over testing my "rights", but I absolutely cheer his willingness to do so for me.

    I heavily support any and all righteous challenging of the self-imposed authority that runs this "free world".
     
  15. astroman

    astroman Supporting Member Supporter

    628
    1
    0
    bottom line, sh!thead went looking for trouble - he found it. As for what the "law" states in this case, none of us on here know as we were not there - its all speculation. I am all for questioning things when they appear to me to be not right - but this jackass was just looking for a fight - there are other ways to accomplish things or make your point without being a dick
     
  16. BeyondTheBox

    BeyondTheBox New Member

    2,630
    0
    0
    Incorrect, as a matter of fact. He went looking for proof and he got it. Proof of negligence, ignorance, incompetence and, worst of all, injustice within the walls of a building set to uphold suposed judicial laws.

    I didn't see him being a dick at all. He was an idiot, "I'm not a person, I'm a man...", wow what a moron. However, he was the only one there showing no aggression, from what the video showed, and that's all we have to go on.

    I can't say he went looking for trouble, nor can you. However, did he, I'm glad he found it. Not because I think he got what he "deserved", but because he got to what we all deserve to witness and be educated upon. It's just sad that some refuse to see through their own inferrences and projections.
     
  17. TWMIM

    TWMIM New Member

    1,005
    0
    0
    I think when you run around, threatening to sue evryone for what you think they might do, you're being aggressive.

    I think, when you try and push me to get through a door, you've committed a crime, punishable by me whoopin your azz.

    I think everyone the guy was trying to start crap with showed incredible restraint.
     
  18. astroman

    astroman Supporting Member Supporter

    628
    1
    0
    Agreed TWMIM... he just kept pushing their buttons until enough was enough. He obviously wanted to get tazed or worse. The smart mouthed "boy" should have just given the camera to his mommy who was there with him.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2012
  19. Vikingdad

    Vikingdad New Member

    14,922
    0
    0
    The incident took place in the Kootenai County, Idaho Courthouse. Idaho law regarding cameras in the courtroom is as follows:

    The "badges" handled him with much more respect than he was giving them. As I said, it depends on the state you are in. Usually the rules are posted as you enter the courthouse, at least they are here in CA. They did tell him that cameras were not allowed in the courtroom, multiple times. At 2:10 he is told that in order to have a camera in the courtroom he needs a court order to do so. He replies that the law does not apply to him because "I am not a person", whatever that means (besides the fact he is not playing with a full deck). Do you really think that it would have made any difference to the guy if they had stated the code for the law respecting recording in a courtroom? He wouldn't even give his name when asked, but at the same time was asking for names and mockingly using them in an attempt to intimidate the deputies for Pete's sake! Do you think that they should have arrested him right off the bat when they observed him recording in the courtroom? Or are you going to go ahead and keep assuming that he was within his rights to be doing exactly as he did and the cops were the ones completely in the wrong?

    Oh, and he did get arrested, but only after almost 10 minutes of being a complete dickhead (I am not a "person", I am a "Man." "I don't have a name. But you can call me Robert". And all sorts of other BS.)

    Do us a favor BeyondTheBox and just unsubscribe to this thread and leave us to our fun.