Userone
-
Posts
72 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Blogs
Forums
Calendar
News
Posts posted by Userone
-
-
1 hour ago, ScubaStef said:
I'm not even going to entertain this discussion anymore. I'm not gonna play back and forth lawyer and teacher because it's clearly making no progress with you.
Cause you're not a lawyer. And you never were a lawyer. And you keep pulling arguments out of who-knows-where.
You're impossible to convince, even with a dictionary definition shoved in your face - you will disagree. I can't help you, sorry. I find you unreasonable.
1 hour ago, ScubaStef said:You're spewing your uneducated opinion about a criminal law
Don't lie about me in public. That would be libel, since it's in writing. I can pursue criminal charges for this.
I didn't spew opinions, I directed you to the state law, the constitution and the dictionary.
1 hour ago, ScubaStef said:that we've had here for about as long as I can remember. The crazy part is that a few of us are actually entertaining your opinion on it and taking our time to explain the way the law is correctly understood.
Here it is. "The way I understand it is the correct way, the way you understand it... through the dictionary, that's the wrong way."
Just cause you're a cop doesn't mean you're always right.
1 hour ago, ScubaStef said:There's no reason for the law to be changed and that's that.
It will be changed, cause it contradicts constitutional first amendment. And first amendment ain't going nowhere.
Refer to my earlier responses for objective evidence, I reposted it like five times already.
1 hour ago, ScubaStef said:If your character gets detained or arrested for "flirting in public", absolutely nothing stops you from handling it IC.
I know I can handle it IC. That's not the point. The point of this thread is to make sure laws follow some minimum standard, like conforming with the 1st amendment.
1 hour ago, ScubaStef said:Also if you think you're going to shoot direct insults at people and their professions when all they're trying to do is educate you, you're wrong. That'll get you nowhere quick.
Just because your insults were less direct, doesn't mean you weren't the one to start insulting me.
You implied I had not even a basic understanding of law, you implied I was unreasonable.
I merely proved you are driven by your emotions, rather than rationality.
That's why you claimed that a law enforcement agency isn't an organization.
That's why you claimed that playful flirting isn't sexually suggestive conduct.
That's why you think that corruption cannot be handled by the public, or me.
That's why you think that we need a substantial finding of corruption to begin investigating corruption - if that was the case, no investigation would ever happen.
Like I said before, I am objectively scared for safety of innocent people under your authority.
Please, take a moment to acknowledge that there's nothing wrong with being imperfect as a human being. As long as you're deemed to be no more than reasonably negligent, you shouldn't be afraid of admitting your flaws and limitations.
But you haven't done that. Even though you agreed with my contradicting retorts against you. Except when you failed to mention that a naked man would be charged with indecent exposure, that was the only time.
I'm sure if you get over your emotions, you have potential to be a great deputy. Until then, best of luck to all of us.
-
24 minutes ago, ScubaStef said:
Most copyright infringement cases can be civil but can also turn criminal. And even then, it's not exactly the same process as a law enforcement officer making a criminal arrest and going through the legal system that way.
Yes. And law enforcement is about physical enforcement more so than literal interpretations.
In that context, my experience is more relevant than yours.
24 minutes ago, ScubaStef said:It's not prejudicial at all. you just believe it is. And ask them, not me.
Prejudicial Oxford Languages dictionary definition:
Quoteharmful to someone or something; detrimental
I get that you don't think it's prejudicial to stop a promiscuous woman for flirting, because you think that a cop's subjective interpretation should rule over the objective reality. I can't help you there, except to reiterate - you're wrong, because law cares about objective facts more than subjective opinions and emotions.
24 minutes ago, ScubaStef said:She wasn't ordered, she was asked.
Why would they ask that, if they "weren't" detaining her?
24 minutes ago, ScubaStef said:While there was no reason for them to turn their lights on, I'm assuming they did it to be able to let drivers know to move over to the next lane. Unfortunately there's no way for us to turn on an individual set of lights like you would be able to, such as rear lights, front lights, takedowns, alley lights, traffic advisors, etc..
Doesn't matter. They stopped in the road, instead of parking literally around the corner. Clearly, they were intending on doing a detainment from the very beginning, the moment they saw her, before they even got out of the car.
24 minutes ago, ScubaStef said:Is "smiling and waving at guys" written as the dictionary definition of flirting? If it is, cite that please. I'd love to see it.
For the second time, the definition of the verb “flirt,” according to Oxford English Dictionary, is:
”To behave as though romantically or sexually attracted to someone, but in a playful way rather than with serious intentions“
Any reasonable person would perceive someone dressed promiscuously, smiling and waving, to be a playful and sexually suggestive conduct, aka flirting.
24 minutes ago, ScubaStef said:To be able to legally detain someone, you need reasonable suspicion. Where you're getting all these other added words from, I have no idea but you're reading way too far into it. A woman that dresses promiscuously just to hitchhike could give off the impression that she's a prostitute. Also, how would they be able to know that just by looking at her? Are they supposed to communicate with her telepathically or actually go up to her and have a conversation about it? Your way of thinking really confuses me.
So, do you think that a cop can detain a promiscuously dressed woman, only because he subjectively thinks that she's a prostitute?
No, you're wrong. So wrong. You need objective reasonable suspicion. You need to see her offer sex for money, even implicitly. As long as she's offering sex free of charge, you don't have enough reasonable suspicion to detain her.
You do not necessarily need to detain someone to investigate them.
24 minutes ago, ScubaStef said:You make certain statements and when someone responds to those statements, you say silly things like "irrelevant", "subjective", "derailing", etc.. If you're going to make a statement (whether it has anything to do with the specific criminal law you're discussing), odds are you're gonna get a response to it. It's no different than having a normal conversation with someone.
Likewise. & Irrelevant.
24 minutes ago, ScubaStef said:You are absolutely something else. Unless you know exactly what CIT training consists of, don't make uneducated comments about it. And definitely don't insult my job when you know absolutely nothing about it. Law enforcement in the US is entirely different from law enforcement in Europe.
You are a disgrace to your department. My insults are not the instigator, as you were the one to start demeaning and insulting me first by falsely undermining almost everything I said.
24 minutes ago, ScubaStef said:Diagnosing someone with autism and possibly recognizing a sign of autism are two completely different things.
I initially thought so too, but actually no:
Definition of "to diagnose" - identify the nature of (an illness or other problem) by examination of the symptoms
And again - what relevance is there if there is no reasonable suspicion of an actual crime?
24 minutes ago, ScubaStef said:You claim you know about business law, not mental health.
Copyright law, which gives me experience in court proceedings and how the law is interpreted (spoiler alert: technically).
Mental health here is irrelevant, because there is no crime being committed.
24 minutes ago, ScubaStef said:Stop acting like you know everything.
Projecting.
I acknowledge my limitations, you don't.
24 minutes ago, ScubaStef said:I have absolutely no idea what you're saying with that second sentence so I'm not even gonna try to address it. They showed no prejudice at all, that much I can tell you.
Subjective opinion, like everything else you've said in this discussion.
-
51 minutes ago, ScubaStef said:
The only person misinformed here is you. You've been given thorough explanations by several people now and you're still sticking with your belief.
I’ve been given nothing but naive opinions of egotistical people with authority.
I’m sticking with the literal dictionary definitions, as defined in Oxford English Dictionary; as well as the state law and the US Constitution.
51 minutes ago, ScubaStef said:Court PROCEEDINGS remain similar? I don't think so. Also, I said business law and criminal law. Nowhere did I mention civil.
I said I studied Copyright Law, which can be both Civil and Criminal. Though my experience was mostly on the Civil part, that doesn’t undermine it.
51 minutes ago, ScubaStef said:You said you studied business law and we're talking about criminal law here. There's also a difference between civil and criminal.
And. I. Have. Acknowledged. It.
51 minutes ago, ScubaStef said:Your first /ame when the officer got out of the car was that Michelle Jefferson "smells of cannabis", which is a criminal indicator in and of itself. Just because it wasn't mentioned doesn't mean it wasn't considered at some point. Like you said yourself, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
Not the first time you agree with me, but I find it funny how you apply this standard only now - after I dug out the very specific relevant evidence of police officers being prejudicial and stopping her for flirting.
If they were really stoping her for the cannabis, why wouldn’t they say so?
51 minutes ago, ScubaStef said:Where did he say (verbatim) that she was stopped just for flirting?
They see her standing on the curb, smiling and waving.
They stop, siren lights on, hop out and order Michelle to “sit on the curb.”
At this point any reasonable person would believe they’re detained.
She asks if she is detained.
They say Michelle was “smiling and waving at guys,” which is flirting definition verbatim.
51 minutes ago, ScubaStef said:To me, it sounds more like he suspected her to be involved in prostitution.
To be able to LEGALLY detain someone, one has to have OBJECTIVE reasonable suspicion of a crime.
Sure, subjectively anyone can assume a person who is dressed promiscuously and waving on the corner is a prostitute. However, objectivity speaking - that isn’t enough, because she could also just be a woman who dresses promiscuously looking to actually just hitchhike.
Just seeing a promiscuously dressed woman waving and smiling on a curb is not enough reasonable suspicion to be able to LEGALLY detain for prostitution.
The cops could of parked legally and approached civilly to ask consensual questions like everyone else could. Instead, they stopped in the street with lights on and immediately told Michelle to sit on the curb.
They made it clear that Michelle wasn’t allowed to leave at that time, which is the definition of a detention. They however lacked the OBJECTIVE reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime, making it an ILLEGAL DETAINMENT.
51 minutes ago, ScubaStef said:I'm literally responding to you. Stop trying to bait people, this isn't a courtroom.
I feel like I’m the one who’s being baited here.
51 minutes ago, ScubaStef said:That's crazy. I have a whole book laying in front of me that goes over different signs of a mental health crisis that I went over during the training I was in.
You are not a psychologist. Even if you were, you would fucking know that one cannot diagnose strangers, who aren’t their patients.
Stop disgracing the Sheriffs Department.
51 minutes ago, ScubaStef said:It doesn't have to be possession of marijuana, it could just be that you're under the influence of it. That's a real crime here in the US, by the way.
No. It is not a crime to merely be under influence, unless you are disturbing the public, damaging / stealing, operating motor vehicle or committing other crimes.
Possession, transportation, distribution of controlled substances are all crimes. Being under influence itself is only a crime while driving a motor vehicle, or causing public disturbance.
51 minutes ago, ScubaStef said:I'm glad you left the best part for last. You're absolutely right, autism isn't a crime, however it IS relevant because it can be taken into consideration in this case. Jefferson is standing on a street corner in probably one of the most crime riddled parts of the city staring and smiling at the sunset. A simple Google search can show you just how relevant it could be, so I've taken the liberty for you.
Dressing promiscuous, standing on the curb and flirting isn’t necessarily “autism,” you need to stop trying to diagnose other people. Seriously.
It doesn’t matter if one has a mental disorder or not, if the cops don’t have reasonable articulable suspicion of an actual crime to make a legal detention.
They showed their prejudice by approaching so hostily and telling Michelle to “sit on a curb,” turning it into an illegal detainment rather than doing a consensual conversation.
-
1 hour ago, livid said:
Before you start typing, Userone; no, @ScubaStef did not imply that being autistic is a crime. Simply, if someone with a mental health issue is standing around in the middle of the street during night and they're acting weird; it's a law enforcement officer's duty to come through and check what's going on.
The fact that I had to point this out before you responded should give you a pretty good idea of how you've been presenting yourself and your points.
No, it’s a good idea of how the deputy has presented themselves.
Being merely “weird,” as in “unusual,” as long as it’s civil, isn’t in itself a crime, according to first amendment.
A police officer needs a reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime that already actually exists, not one they subjectively make up in their head, to be able to legally detain people for investigation and demand ID, for them to “sit on a curb.”
Michelle specifically asked if she was DETAINED, the cop responded by justifying the detention with the fact that Michelle was flirting. Furthermore, she was even directed to “sit on the curb.”
That makes this an illegal detention, according to first amendment. This was NOT a mere consensual conversation.
-
39 minutes ago, ScubaStef said:
At this point I don't even know why you're still going at it.
Because you’re spreading dangerous misinformation.
39 minutes ago, ScubaStef said:Criminal law and business law are significantly different types of law.
Sure, but court proceedings remain similar between civil and criminal court, at least in terminology.
39 minutes ago, ScubaStef said:I'm sure they taught you that in school way over there. You're hellbent on believing the fact that flirting is a crime but still haven't been able to show one incident where someone was actually arrested for it. Your video (and of course you're the one in it,) shows no evidence that your character was stopped for "flirting".
The cop admits Michelle was stopped for “smiling and waving at guys,” which is flirting.
39 minutes ago, ScubaStef said:The video starts when the police arrive and ends when they leave but provides us with nothing to show what led up to the encounter, so you can say it was because of flirting all you want, but that doesn't make your assumption correct.
No assumption, that’s what the cop said when Michelle asked if she was detained.
39 minutes ago, ScubaStef said:You brought suspicion to yourself for more than one reason, including the indicator of marijuana use.
Cops didn’t bring up any suspicion of marijuana possession.
39 minutes ago, ScubaStef said:Don't leave out key bits of information. Also, "better part of a decade"? I don't think so.
Stop derailing.
39 minutes ago, ScubaStef said:You really haven't done anything throughout this discussion we've had but embarrass yourself.
Projecting.
39 minutes ago, ScubaStef said:Back to the video now. You're standing on a street corner in Stawberry typing /me and /ame emotes about how your character is looking at the sunset and smiling and being unusually joyful. I can see how an officer would possibly even see that as some sort of mental health issue like autism.
Stop embarrassing yourself, deputy. Autism can only be diagnosed by a professional mental health specialist.
You keep going beyond your area of expertise. Control your ego.
39 minutes ago, ScubaStef said:But what attracted attention to you in this video was not only the unusual joyfulness, but the fact that you even said yourself that your character, and I'll quote this directly from the chat I'm reading in your video, "smells like weed".
They didn’t bring up any weed, though. They said they stopped Michelle for “smiling and waving at guys,” which is flirting.
39 minutes ago, ScubaStef said:You have at LEAST two other indicators that something could be going on, but your take from it was that you were stopped for flirting, which just amazes me. I can't wait to see what other crimes you bring up for discussion.
You are yet to name one actual reasonable articulable suspicion of any real crime, other than possession of weed - which the cops did not bring up.
You said it’s “autism,” which isn’t a crime or relevant whatsoever.
-
1 hour ago, livid said:
@Userone You're Romanian or Latvian and the only "experience" with US law that you have is roleplaying a cop on a virtual video game where "boxing in" was a valid technique to apprehend suspects evading in a vehicle up until a few years ago.
Actually, for a better part of a decade LSRP dissallowed “boxing in” in police procedures. Stop spreading misinformation.
I’ve read the law. Many many many times. I’ve interpreted law in fiction and non-fiction (meaning IRL), I completed a business uni course on copyright law, you don’t seem to know Jack Shit about my US law experience.
Trying to discredit me for the country I was born in, despicable. Look at the fucking evidence I posted.
1 hour ago, livid said:@ScubaStef is a real life law enforcement officer and lives in the US.
Just because he’s a real cop, doesn’t make his word law. He isn’t a legislator, a judge or a jury. He doesn’t make and isn’t above the law.
I showed actual evidence, while he was saying that a law enforcement agency isn’t an organization.
1 hour ago, livid said:You're going on and on about something that is absolutely mind boggling and irrelevant and if this was anyone other than yourself - I'd think that they're trolling.
I think YOU are trolling.
I objectively proved my point and disproved @ScubeStef ‘s inconsistencies with objective evidence.
1 hour ago, livid said:I urge you to be so eager and suggestive about other more important factors that involve different aspects of player retention on the server considering you've been roleplaying here for ten years and clearly aren't willing to leave (so why not contribute positively?)
You are one rude person.
Whether what I’m doing now is “good” or “bad” is a matter of opinion, but I’m following the discussion topic. Unlike you.
1 hour ago, livid said:- instead of going off about a random misdemeanor penal code which is completely unimportant to everyone.
If “everyone” is you and your friends. You are unempathetic.
The whole point of this section is to discuss law, aka “penal code.”
1 hour ago, livid said:You're taking this way too serious and I don't know how @ScubaStef mustered the patience to keep going back and forth with you considering how long this has been going.
Easy. He was upset and wanted a last word in. No matter how.
If you actually read his responses you’ll see how they are inconsistent with law, logic and the dictionary.
1 hour ago, livid said:The video that you showed literally shows police officers approaching you because they suspect your character's a prostitute,
It was an illegal detainment for flirting, word for what what @ScubaStef demanded from me.
1 hour ago, livid said:then you roleplay reeking of cannabis and having bloodshot eyes, then they literally ask you for ID - you don't provide it (because you weren't even technically detained legally, even though they could've very well done so)
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
She was detained, cause she asked if she was and a cop provided his reason.
Just that cop’s reason was that Michelle was flirting.
1 hour ago, livid said:and then they move on with their lives. What point did this prove? The only thing that I got from that video is that you need a new internet service provider.
Go ahead and move on. You aren’t contributing anything useful to the discussion.
I proved several points:
1) including “or sexually suggestive conduct” in Lewd and Dissolute wording is REDUNDANT, because “sexual misconduct” already exists.
2) All sexually suggestive conduct is technically flirting, according to Oxford English Dictionary.
3) Sometimes real cops make real mistakes. Which is why the US legal system has such a high criminal burden of proof in the first place: “beyond any reasonable doubt.”
1 hour ago, livid said:Best of luck in your future roleplay experiences, though! I'm pretty sure the law's not gonna be changed and I'll gladly spectate you repeating one exact same thing over and over again.
So rude.
Anyway, watch me change every problematic law one way or another.
-
8 hours ago, ScubaStef said:
I have never in my 11+ years of playing here have I seen anyone get arrested for just flirting. If you can provide evidence of a time where someone WAS arrested for just flirting, then go ahead and provide that evidence here as part of this public discussion you want to have.
Here, I got something special just for you:
Technically, it's not an unlawful arrest for flirting, but merely a brief unlawful detainment for flirting. I'm unsure if the law were discussing in question was already instated at the time of this video recording 6 months ago.
However, you wanted evidence that police would show prejudice to promiscuity. Here it is, objective proof. Illegal detainment for "waving and smiling at guys," which is flirting again. Just what you asked for.
This is why I've been recording everything for the past 7 years. This is why I have archives of terabytes of footage of all the evidence. Because people like you, who like to use their status as a law enforcement officer, to try to go around and enforce their personal opinions as facts.
The truth is you aren't all-knowing, no one is. So, when you go talking about something as important as law, please stick to your specific area of expertise and don't divulge into psychology of when and how people in any authority become corrupt. And when you get upset, take 10 seconds to take deep breaths, otherwise you'll start arguing that a law enforcement agency isn't an organization and that sexually suggestive conduct isn't flirting.
-
7 minutes ago, ScubaStef said:
Alright, I'm not going to go back and forth and dissect everything that you're saying. What's obvious here is that your take on the definition of the word "flirt" or "flirting" doesn't line up with what lewd or dissolute conduct in public is considered.
Keep gaslighting the Oxford English Dictionary, and maybe others will believe you.
There is no “my take,” it’s the dictionary definition.
7 minutes ago, ScubaStef said:The definition of lewd or dissolute conduct is clearly detailed in the law and a reasonable person would know when the charge is necessary and when it isn't.
Ah, so you’re claiming I’m an unreasonable person then? Howcome?
Because I use the dictionary definition?
7 minutes ago, ScubaStef said:Neither the charge nor the wording of the definition of the charge is unconstitutional and your interpretation of it is wrong.
So, the dictionary is wrong then.
7 minutes ago, ScubaStef said:I have never in my 11+ years of playing here have I seen anyone get arrested for just flirting. If you can provide evidence of a time where someone WAS arrested for just flirting, then go ahead and provide that evidence here as part of this public discussion you want to have.
Sure, just wait till I get home from work.
-
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:
I'm the one that explained it. There's no need me to reread what I said.
Cause you’re a cop, and cops are never wrong.
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:I'm not disagreeing with the dictionary, I'm disagreeing with you.
But I’m quoting the dictionary.
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:No idea what you mean by this. The dictionary definition doesn't match up with the definition you're making up.
I can’t help those who don’t want to be helped. I shoved a dictionary in your face, showed how it litteraly says the same thing and I’m out of ideas.
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:Believe what you want to belive. I'm also not upset at you at all, I'm just trying to explain this law as clearly as I can to you. I genuinely don't understand how you're assuming that flirting in public is illegal. It just baffles me.
I didn’t assume anything.
I read the current law, pointed out how it litteraly prohibits “sexually suggestive conduct.” Then, I proved that all “sexually suggestive conduct” is technically “flirting,” including consensual and lawful flirting, by showing the dictionary definition of the verb “flirt.”
Nothing was ever assumed by me, on contrary - you are the one to make a lot of statements with zero evidence to back it up.
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:What I understood wasn't an interpretation. The dictionary definition is “to decide that something has a particular meaning and to understand it”. I didn't take any "particular meaning" out of what you were saying.
Likewise.
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:What I was stating was my understanding and experience of your view on the government and its apparent corruption.
Irrelevant.
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:There are plenty of different types of audits. Just going with the first definition you find and assuming it applies to everything doesn't make it applicable to a specific type of audit.
In other words: not all types of audits are audits.
Are you okay? You’re not making any sense.
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:Also, how is this relevant to the response I gave you about the TV series you were referencing???
Cause you said it was “unheard of” to willingly subject yourself to be booked voluntarily in order to audit jail.
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:So again as I stated earlier, completely unheard of.
Denial.
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:No single person can just be incarcerated and act as an "undercover inmate" to do what you were intending on doing.
That’s exactly what they did.
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:"Potential misconduct" isn't necessarily proven misconduct.
Especially with no investigation or supervision.
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:There has to be an actual sustained finding of misconduct for there to be any credibility to the claim.
Stop about general corruption, let’s get back to the law in dispute.
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:If it's unfounded, then there's no misconduct. The public doesn't handle these investigations, it goes through the proper channels and neither you nor the public are one of them.
I’m starting to think you’re more than just naive.
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:I would love to hear more about how two people give consent to flirting prior to one flirting with the other because that's the direction you're going in with this.
A single non-malicious flirt is not criminal harassment.
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:Just because the word "sexually" is in the term doesn't mean it applies to any other definition that mentions the word "sexually".
Unless that is the definition of it.
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:Where does the dictionary specifically mention the term "sexually suggestive conduct" under the definition you cited?
Dictionaries go one word at a time.
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:You're picking and choosing to acknowledge what I said and leaving out the key details. Read the scenario again.
I acknowledged your original and I amended it.
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:And yet you still fail to cite exactly when someone was arrested simply for flirting but claim that what we say are "nothing but subjective opinions". I'm confused.
What more than subjective opinions have you provided? Not a shred of evidence.
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:Your takeaway from what the dictionary definition is and what the law states are two different things.
They seem pretty identical to me.
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:Your understanding of it is. You're implying that "sexually suggestive conduct" is included in the definition of flirting and it isn't.
Yes, it is.
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:I think you're the only person that would consider that to be flirting. The average person would not.
Subjective. Irrelevant.
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:Again, cite the dictionary definition of the word "flirt" or "flirting" where it SPECIFICALLY mentions the term "sexually suggestive conduct".
Any playful act with intent to express “sexual” attraction is a dictionary-definition “flirt.”
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:It's not irrelevant and the man would be charged with lewd or dissolute conduct in public and indecent exposure. If you think this is wrong, put yourself in this situation as the naked man and see how it plays out for you.
They would be charged with both regardless of the presence of the mention of “sexually suggestive conduct,” because Lewd and Dissolute already mentions “sexual misconduct “ as a seperate prohibition and is not in dispute.
I’m getting tired of repeating myself.
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:I'm not going to keep up with this back and forth anymore. You've been (hopefully) educated on the proper application of the charge "lewd or dissolute conduct in public" and should have a better understanding of it so long as you read everything that's been discussed between yourself and several others, including myself.
The only thing I was educated on was that emotions are quite a driver.
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:If you need any more clarification on it, you're more than welcome to DM me on discord and we can discuss it there. But there's no need to discuss it here any more than we already have.
No, no. I think this kind of conversation should be public.
-
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:
Are you sure that's EXACTLY what I said? Read it again.
You should read it. I acknowledged your example at first, explained why it’s irrelevant (because Indecent Exposure is a seperate, indesputed, criminal offense), made it relevant to the topic (by clothing the man), and you STILL said that the comments would be problematic, which they shouldn’t be.
If only you acknowledged my amended version of your example, since unlike your original example - it’s actually relevant.
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:I'm refusing to acknowledge it because it's just ridiculous. You're the only person whose takeaway from this law is that flirting in public is illegal.
It concerns me that there’s a law enforcement officer who disagrees with the Oxford English Dictionary.
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:I can guarantee that neither I nor any other person that roleplays law enforcement in LS:RP interpret this law the same way. You're the first and only one.
Not counting the dictionary.
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:Again, they're referred to as law enforcement agencies. I haven't heard of a single agency being referred to as a "law enforcement organization", but go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe.
Organization and agency are synonymous.
You’re so upset at me, you’re trying to claim that a law enforcement agency is not an organization.
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:And yet this still has nothing to do with the charge you keep going back to.
You were the one to complain that I dared to refer to a law enforcement agency as “an organization.”
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:And you're using it in the wrong context.
Please, clarify.
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:Your assumption of the premise of the show is wrong. I'll go ahead and quote the premise from the Wikipedia page directly just so there's no confusion;
It states clearly that the series follows seven individuals. Not only that, but just about everything on this show is documented and closely monitored by the film crew.
Right.
Here’s a definition of “audit,” but it’s the last time I’m Googling something for you, deputy:
”an official examination of business and financial records to see that they are true and correct.
“
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:Your idea was to go in as a single person, document incidents on your own and without a single shred of evidence and report it to corrections staff. I shouldn't have to explain what the discrepancies are.
Not just to the corrections staff, that’d be rather useless. I was mainly intending to audit the corrections staff themselves, and report potential misconduct to public.
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:Read your own quote directly from the dictionary and explain to me how the definition of the word has ANY connection with sexually suggestive conduct.
sexually suggestive conduct has “sexually” as its adjective
flirt includes ALL playful sexual advances, consensual or not, nice or not.
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but if you think that flirting in public is considered lewd or dissolute conduct then you don't have a basic understanding of the law. I'm not embarrassed at all.
You should be embarrassed.
You’re trying to argue that “flirting” is not “sexually suggestive conduct,” even though the dictionary says it litteraly is.
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:Did I say it was sexually suggestive? If I did, please quote exactly where I said that.
“Already done. As I said in my above statement, read through it. The comment is not flirting. It's sexually suggestive conduct. Think a little harder.”
I guess I did.
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:If you think the example is "redundant and irrelevant", that's fine. I think you're the only person at this point that thinks so, despite the clear explanations you've been given not only by myself, but also by others.
Nothing but subjective opinions, not a single citation or objective contradiction.
Meanwhile, I threw three dictionaries at you last response. Which you disagree with.
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:It's not redundant and it's very much relevant. You just aren't thinking through it clearly or realistically.
I guess reading the dictionary definition is just unclear and unrealistic.
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:I did (refer to dictionary definition of the verb “flirt”) and the comment I referred to in addition to the crime that was being committed doesn't make it flirting like you're assuming it is.
Well, then I guess the Oxford fucking Dictionary is wrong, then. Must be!
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:If you truly think that a naked man making sexual comments at you and dancing around in front of you is flirting, that's very troubling.
It is flirting, technically. The legal issue that he’s NAKED.
Seperate crime from the one being discussed.
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:To me at least, it sure seems like you think government corruption is a lot more prevalent than it really is.
Irrelevant.
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:Flirting is not sexually suggestive conduct and corruption would not apply.
Dictionary definition.
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:I never said (government corruption) doesn't exist. I'm saying it isn't as common as you seem to think it is.
Irrelevant.
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:The scenario I gave you is relevant because it goes over when the charge you're referring to would be applicable.
It’s irrelevant, because a naked man will already be charged, even if we do what I say and get rid of the unnecessary mention of “sexually suggestive conduct,” as “sexual misconduct” is SEPERATELY mentioned already and is NOT IN DISPUTE.
1 minute ago, ScubaStef said:If you don't understand that at all, I'm sorry.
Likewise.
-
1 hour ago, ScubaStef said:
We're not even going to go there. And not once did I claim that simply flirting is illegal in any way whatsoever.
You said that a man approaching someone in a park and saying “Nice Tatas, you like what you see,” even while clothed, would be somehow criminal.
This goes against first amendment.
1 hour ago, ScubaStef said:You're just refusing to understand.
No, I understand precisely.
You are refusing to acknowledge my litteral and objective interpretation of the law, beause you have law enforcement experience.
Even though neither you, nor I are lawyers, legislators, nor judges who actually work directly with legislation consistency, and not physical safety and enforcement.
1 hour ago, ScubaStef said:Also just so we're on the same page, I do still work for the sheriff's department and it's a law enforcement agency, not an organization.
Any group of people with a goal is an organization. Organization and agency are synonymous.
1 hour ago, ScubaStef said:I read the part where you said he was clothed, I just don't care enough to address it because the scenario I gave you didn't mention him being clothed.
Your ego is showing, deputy.
1 hour ago, ScubaStef said:That comment alone does not constitute flirting given the situation. If you think that comment in that situation is flirting, then I have some serious concerns.
Definition of the verb “flirt,” according to Oxford English Dictionary, is:
”To behave as though romantically or sexually attracted to someone, but in a playful way rather than with serious intentions“
1 hour ago, ScubaStef said:There's no misinterpretation there whatsoever. I think your understanding of the word "interpret" is a little off.
The Oxford Learner’s dictionary’s definition for the verb “interpret:”
“to decide that something has a particular meaning and to understand it”
1 hour ago, ScubaStef said:I've seen plenty of screenshots where you roleplay some sort of constitutional right auditor and even tried to be incarcerated as an inmate just to do an audit. Absolutely unheard of.
I guess 60-days-in is pure fiction, then.
1 hour ago, ScubaStef said:And it is aligned with the constitution. The fact that you've been hellbent on thinking that flirting is a crime is just bewildering me.
You think that, you just don’t realize.
I am arguing the way the law is litteraly written, it litteraly prohibits “sexually suggestive conduct” which FLIRTING IS BY DICTIONARY DEFINITION.
1 hour ago, ScubaStef said:To be able to enforce the law, you have to have a basic understanding of it. Thanks for the clarifying pointers, by the way.
I am insulted by the fact that you’re implying that I don’t have even a basic understanding of the law.
Frankly, you are embarrassing yourself.
1 hour ago, ScubaStef said:Both and that's why both charges would be filed. What happens from there is up to the court to decide, as I've explained at least a handful of times before.
In the event that a person is nude, there is no need to mention that it’s “sexually suggestive.”
The charge for indecent exposure already exists, making your example redundant and irrelevant.
1 hour ago, ScubaStef said:Already done. Read through it.
Your example is redundant and irrelevant for aforementioned reasons. Read them again and try again.
1 hour ago, ScubaStef said:Already done. As I said in my above statement, read through it. The comment is not flirting. It's sexually suggestive conduct. Think a little harder.
Reffer to aforementioned dictionary definition of the verb “flirt.”
1 hour ago, ScubaStef said:First the government was corrupt, now individual law enforcement officers are corrupt. Pick one already. Also while you're at it, give me a detailed example.
Holy shit.
Government corruption merely existing doesn’t necessarily mean that the entire government is corrupt.
Government corruption reflects through corrupt government officials, including occasionally overly-negligent legislators or law enforcement officers.
I never said all government employees are corrupt. However, it’s important to account for those that are corrupt and the effects of that.
1 hour ago, ScubaStef said:There's no corruption involved in the creation of this criminal charge. I have no idea what you're on about.
The corruption here is the legislator included the wording to prohibit technically any and all “sexually suggestive conduct,” which is the dictionary definition of flirting.
1 hour ago, ScubaStef said:I know. Just about every one of your replies brings up corruption.
Only because you keep trying to imply that government corruption doesn’t exist.
1 hour ago, ScubaStef said:And for the third time now, it's already been done. Read over it. I have no idea what "relevant" means to you, but I think you have the definition wrong.
Dictionary definition of “relevant” is:
”closely connected with the subject you are discussing or the situation you are thinking about
”
Your example is irrelevant, because I am talking about MERE sexually suggestive conduct and NOT indecent exposure, which is already a separate offense.
-
1 hour ago, ScubaStef said:
If you think that the comments that were made (which in that scenario WOULD be considered lewd or dissolute conduct) in the commission of a crime are protected by the first amendment right, I have some serious concerns.
The fact that you allegedly worked for a real law enforcement organization and don’t realize that mere flirting is legal in an alternative scenario where that man would of been clothed makes me concerned objectively for safety of innocent people.
I give you benefit of doubt and just assume you didn’t read the part where I said “if he was clothed,” because that was the only way to make your example relevant.
And yes, that comment alone would absolutely constitute “flirting,” “sexually suggestive conduct” AND “protected-by-first-amendment free civil expression.”
1 hour ago, ScubaStef said:How was that a misinterpretation in any way whatsoever?
You interpreted me claiming that government corruption exists to mean that it’s everywhere or rampant. That’s a misinterpretation.
1 hour ago, ScubaStef said:I'm referring to your misunderstanding of criminal law, not my personal opinion or the dictionary definition of something.
My alleged “misunderstanding” is the dictionary definition itself.
1 hour ago, ScubaStef said:Dictionary definitions aren't always used in the field. Not every law enforcement officer has bifocals and a dictionary handy during an arrest.
Which is why it’s important to amend the law to align with the constitution.
1 hour ago, ScubaStef said:You roleplayed being in law enforcement and I've been working in law enforcement for nearly five years now. If you think those two things are similar, not only is that an extreme insult, but you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
You are not a lawyer. You are not a judge. You are not a jury. You are not a legislator.
You don’t make laws. You don’t choose laws. Your job is enforcing safety and laws as they are written.
If that insults you, tough.
As for the implication that I allegedly don’t have any legal experience, because I was never a law enforcement officer in real life and roleplay based on real life modern America, on the litteraly the same constitution, is completely irrelevant: That is unreasonable.
Sure, I’m not saying I know what it’s like to be a real cop. However, what I am saying is neither of us are lawyers.
Enforcing the law and debating the law are seperate skillsets. Your law enforcement experience will undoubtedly help you, but so will my roleplay law enforcement experience… because we are on a roleplay server forum.
1 hour ago, ScubaStef said:Indecent exposure and lewd or dissolute conduct in public. You're more than welcome to clear this up with legal faction management if you think I'm wrong. I'm sure @ImperiumXVII wouldn't mind clarifying.
Why lewd and dissolude? For the words or for being naked? Being naked is a seperate offense already, which makes lewd and dissolute irrelevant here.
1 hour ago, ScubaStef said:Re-read the example scenario I gave you and take a good minute to think about the charges that person would face. It wouldn't just be indecent exposure.
Justify.
1 hour ago, ScubaStef said:That was the initial comment I started off with in the example scenario. Then I went on to say that he was "still making vulgar comments". You missed that part.
Give me one vulgar comment that would be criminal. Your example the comments aren’t criminal, the showing of genitalia is.
If he was clothed, there would be no legal problem with this flirting, according to first amendment. Unless, the person he was flirting with asked them to leave them alone and they refused.
1 hour ago, ScubaStef said:So long as there's no reason for them not to be able to possess a firearm, there's no reason for law enforcement to refuse to give them their firearm back. If they do, this would be a violation of the second amendment.
Sure thing, no issues there. Right? No potential for a corrupt cop to take advantage of a vunerable person, or anything like that!
1 hour ago, ScubaStef said:Do explain.
Like I already said, if the cop was no more than reasonably negligent - then the corruption in this arrest comes not from the cop, but from the overly negligent legislator.
1 hour ago, ScubaStef said:This has no correlation to the statement you originally made about corruption through "excessive negligence".
I’m talking about a specific law here, I merely mentioned that government corruption exists.
Right now I am not accusing anyone specific of being corrupt, I am saying thag because government corruption exists - it should be held accountable to be limited.
1 hour ago, ScubaStef said:Just stop. Please.
Provide me with one good, valid and RELEVANT example. So far, you’ve only cited your personal experience working in law enforcement.
What does that have to do with the fact that the state law literally prohibits any “sexually suggestive conduct in public,” even if it’s civil free expression?
-
7 hours ago, ScubaStef said:
Your interpretation of it is an extreme "literal", not a realistic one. I even gave you a scenario where a reasonable person would actually be able to logically interpret the charge and that flew way over your head.
Your example scenario talks about Indecent Exposure, not “mere sexually suggestive conduct.”
The comments in your example alone were not illegal, according to 1st amendment.
7 hours ago, ScubaStef said:Exactly.
So, you’re just gonna glance over how we just had a misinterpretation?
7 hours ago, ScubaStef said:The standard is fine as it is. Just because your understanding of it doesn't line up doesn't mean there's something wrong with it.
Doesn’t line up with what? Your personal opinion, or the dictionary definition of the words?
7 hours ago, ScubaStef said:I think you're just pulling words off of the internet at this point and trying to make your arguments sound more educated.
Your opinion here is irrelevant.
7 hours ago, ScubaStef said:Your claim of flirting alone being illegal is not an educated or logical interpretation of this specific law.
It is a litteral, technical interpretation. Law is technical. I sourced the law at play here directly word-for-word, I used the dictionary definitions.
Therefore, it is, objectively speaking, educated AND logical argument.
7 hours ago, ScubaStef said:You have years of experience roleplaying in law enforcement, I have almost 5 years of experience working for the sheriff's department I've been employed with in real life. Very big difference.
Not really. Neither of us are technically lawyers.
7 hours ago, ScubaStef said:My bad, it would be lewd or dissolute conduct in public and indecent exposure. I'll correct myself there.
It would be MERELY Indecent Exposure. There are NO, NADA, ZERO problems with flirting like the approacher in your example, as long as they do it wearing clothes!
7 hours ago, ScubaStef said:If you think the example (one, not plural by the way) I gave you is extreme, I'm at a loss for words.
A nude person in public is extremely disruptive in our society.
While I am talking about mere “sexually suggestive conduct.”
7 hours ago, ScubaStef said:Not once in that example did I say anything about a "single comment". I said they were STILL making comments when law enforcement arrived. Read things thoroughly before making assumptions.
Your example of a “vulgar comment” is “You like what you see?”
Again, the issue isn’t the comment. It’s the fact that the person is naked.
7 hours ago, ScubaStef said:You're very wrong there. Someone who is going through the courts for a criminal case is subject to the stipulations of having access to weapons while their case is open. Again, I'm gonna encourage you to read up on some criminal cases in literally any state. Every county and some municipalities has a clerk of courts. You can look at them that way.
Cops will always take the guns of their arrestees and won’t eagerly hand them back.
7 hours ago, ScubaStef said:Corruption isn't a mistake, it's a conscious decision. And again, misinterpretation is not intentional.
Not always.
7 hours ago, ScubaStef said:I think you forgot what you said already, so I'll quote your exact statement here;
Reasonable and excessive are two completely different words with different meanings. Pick one and stick with it.
I am saying your example is irrelevant, because it’s excessive and not what I’m speaking about. It’s a different crime, already accounted for. We don’t need “or sexually suggestive conduct.”
7 hours ago, ScubaStef said:I have no idea what you're trying to talk about here
That much is clear.
How about you give me a relevant example, where someone would get legally arrested for mere sexually suggestive conduct, which isn’t already covered by Stalking, Indecent Exposure, “sexual misconduct,” or another already existing criminal offense.
Because, if you could provide even a single valid and relevant example, you would actually present an objective argument for why it’s necessary to mention prohibiting “sexually suggestive conduct” in public, seperately from other prohibitions.
-
9 hours ago, ScubaStef said:
I'm sorry, but (your interpretation of the law) is (false).
You don’t get anywhere just stating your subjective opinion against arguments backed with evidence.
I claim my interpretation isn’t false, because it is litteral. Meaning it is the direct interpretation of the words by their direct meaning.
Support your argument for why you think it’s false with objective evidence.
9 hours ago, ScubaStef said:A lot of what I've seen you focus your roleplay off of seems to imply that the government is corrupt, despite there being no clear indicators.
Government corruption existing does not make all, or even the majority of the government, necessarily corrupt.
9 hours ago, ScubaStef said:I've said it before and I'll say it again, this is how laws work in the US. This is why we have prosecutors and defense attorneys along with internal affairs. Deal with it that way.
So, this discussion section isn’t about changing problematic laws; because “there are laws in US that contradict the constitution, until they’re struck down in court.”
Now, that may be so. But then - what is the point of this section if not to discuss the laws and make sure to keep them up to some form of minimum standard?
9 hours ago, ScubaStef said:And what exactly are you sourcing your arguments from? Because again, I have not EVER seen someone get arrested just for flirting in public.
I sourced the penal code, and the constitution of United States of America.
No one else provided any objective sources for any of their arguments with me.
9 hours ago, ScubaStef said:That is how it already works and I haven't seen a shred of objective evidence from any of your posts that talk about the arrest procedure for flirting in public.
I would appreciate if you had another look. I litteraly did a step-by-step hypothetical breakdown of the procedure using the state law as is.
I have years of experience roleplaying the police, including on earlier LSRP.
9 hours ago, ScubaStef said:Let me give you a scenario and explain it as basically as I can. You're sitting on a bench at a public park. We'll go with Mirror Park just so you have some sort of geographical reference for this. A completely naked man runs up to you out of nowhere, starts dancing in front of you and asks "you like what you see?".
You call 911, the police arrive and see the man still dancing naked in front of you and he's still making vulgar comments. He's arrested and charged with lewd or dissolute conduct in public.
No, that’s Indecent Exposure. That qualifies as sexual misconduct.
No need to mention “or sexually suggestive conduct” in the law, because it’s not relevant here.
The problem is not that it’s sexually suggestive, the problem is that it’s sexually excessive.
Fix the law. Remove unnecessary mention of prohibiting mere potentially-totally-legal “sexually suggestive conduct.”
“Sexual misconduct” is already SEPERATELY prohibited.
9 hours ago, ScubaStef said:The "sexually suggestive conduct" there is that the man is naked
Now I’m convinced you don’t know what you’re talking about.
It’s Indecent Exposure, not “mere sexually suggestive conduct” like what I’m talking about.
It’s literally the next law after the one we’re debating:
”218. Indecent Exposure
(a) A person who intentionally exposes their naked body or genitalia on public property or in the public area of a privately owned business is guilty of a misdemeanor.”
Stop with these irrelevant and extreme examples. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT EXTREME.
9 hours ago, ScubaStef said:and is making sexual comments that are directed at you, causing you to feel uncomfortable and prompting a police response. This is an example of proper interpretation of the charge.
The fucking comments in this situation is nothing compared to a stranger exposing their genitalia.
Had the approacher been clothed, would you consider their single comment “criminal” in any way? Mind you, for “Criminal Harassment” (or “Stalking” how the state law puts it) you need REPEATED or EXCESSIVE botherings.
9 hours ago, ScubaStef said:This depends state by state, but in the state I live and work in, there are several different ways to be temporarily or permanently prohibited from owning a gun. Being possession of a weapon while the prohibition is in effect lands you with a charge we call "having weapons under disability", which is a felony. Unfortunately for criminals (sorry, not sorry) this is how the law works.
Anyone who is a suspected criminal and innocent is also subject to this treatment until exhonirated.
Which wouldn’t be the case if the law was clearer in the first place and consistent with the constitution.
9 hours ago, ScubaStef said:And again, you're referring to the arrests as unlawful despite everything I've already explained. If a deputy or an officer is unclear about a law, they can always refer to a supervisor or a prosecutor to get clarification on it. There's no way to "intentionally misinterpret" something.
That is precisely how corruption typically starts.
Someone is overworked, get complacent, make a mistake. It’s easier to cover up mistake with “intentional misinterpretation,” rather than to work to fix it right now.
It’s a choice all people in any authority have to make. Not all people always make the right choice.
9 hours ago, ScubaStef said:Misinterpretation is never intentional. If you "intentionally misinterpret" something, then that's more along the lines of ignorance.
Bingo! Let’s call it “intentional ignorance.”
I did account for reasonable negligence seperately also.
9 hours ago, ScubaStef said:Until I see some sort of evidence showing that someone was arrested just for flirting in a public place, I'm not going to believe any claim you make about people mistaking flirting for a crime. No reasonable and educated person is going to make the decision to criminally charge somebody just for flirting alone.
You will eat your words later, I promise.
-
3 hours ago, ScubaStef said:
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that you've been extremely misinformed or undereducated on American laws and the legal system. The "local law" (actually state law) does not contradict the first amendment, but your false interpretation of it contradicts the first amendment.
My LITTERAL interpretation of the law comes directly from said law, quoting it word-for-word.
It is not false.
3 hours ago, ScubaStef said:Just because you claim government corruption exists doesn't mean it runs rampant.
Well, (1) I never said government corruption “runs rampant,” just that it merely exists and must be accounted for, (2) whether it “runs rampant” or not is subjective, and (3) that is irrelevant.
3 hours ago, ScubaStef said:We're roleplaying a realistic system to the best of our abilities with the resources we have available to us in a video game.
All I’m asking is you remove the unnecessary mention of the self-admittedly and unnecessary prejudicial mention of prohibiting “sexual conduct.”
I even provided alternatives, with the only excuse for not using them being that you don’t believe that there is a problem when there is an objective inconsistency between state law (or local law, same thing in this context) and the first amendment of the constitution.
3 hours ago, ScubaStef said:Also, believe it or not most criminal cases can take months or even years to fully go through. You have to take into consideration all sorts of factors that I'm not going to mention since we don't really have that same luxury with a video game.
We’re not in a videogame right now, we’re on a forum discussing a fictional legal system. You have the luxury to take your time, make sourced and objective arguments like I have; rather than keep stating your personal opinions.
3 hours ago, ScubaStef said:You're talking about FLIRTING which is not illegal in any way on its own. When it turns into harassment, THEN and ONLY THEN does it become criminal.
That’s how it should work, unfortunately that’s not what the law LITTERALY says.
I don’t see the point repeating myself a sixth time, please refer to my earlier responses for objective evidence.
3 hours ago, ScubaStef said:I've arrested people for non-violent charges that don't warrant their weapons being held indefinitely and I roleplay that they're held for safekeeping until they're released.
No one should be getting arrested for mere “sexually suggestive conduct,” which isn’t malicious or criminal harassment.
3 hours ago, ScubaStef said:It's very common (realistically) for people to be able to have their weapons returned to them after a criminal case that results in charges that wouldn't prohibit them from owning a weapon.
As long as they can afford to buy another weapon while their month long court date is going.
OH WAIT! The court may order them to not do that. Oh well, too bad I guess…
3 hours ago, ScubaStef said:You should read up on different criminal dockets in any court in the US to get a basic understanding as to how they work before making the assumptions you've been making about the law. I think I've explained more than clearly enough that people will not be arrested simply for flirting in public.
Nothing of what you said will stop people from being occasionally lawfully or unlawfully arrested for merely flirting, or any other “sexually suggestive conduct,” because not an insignificant percentage of people subjectively think that promiscuity is bad subconsciously, and enforce that upon others.
A cop can very easily, intentionally or not, misinterpret a law they’re not familiar with. In which case they will most likely interpret it literally like I did.
If they misinterpreted it intentionally, then the cop is the corrupt one. Otherwise, it was the one who wrote this vague law who was corrupt through excessive negligence.
3 hours ago, ScubaStef said:I haven't seen anything like that being done since this server has opened up and you're just now bringing up this discussion about it as if it's been happening for months.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
-
12 hours ago, ScubaStef said:
Again, you're assuming that an officer that makes an arrest based on their interpretation of the charge is being malicious in the arrest.
No. What I’m saying is if they were malicious, they could use this vagueness to their advantage, to cover up any potential allegations of legitimate corruption.
12 hours ago, ScubaStef said:Just because they make the arrest based on their interpretation of the law DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE CHARGE WILL STICK IN COURT.
The arrest is still technically lawful when it shouldn’t be. The local law still contradicts the 1st amendment. That’s the problem.
12 hours ago, ScubaStef said:It is up to the PROSECUTOR to determine if the charge is enough to take to a judge. From there, the charge can still be amended, reduced or dismissed entirely.
But the cop just gets to do it again and again until the law is fixed.
12 hours ago, ScubaStef said:It's obvious that you didn't read the regulations on firearms because it specifically states, "must not have any convictions for violent misdemeanors or felonies". Lewd or dissolute conduct in public is obviously not a violent felony nor is it a violent misdemeanor, so there should be absolutely no concern about having a license revoked or suspended.
Last I checked, any time you’re arrested - they take your weapons. Often they aren’t eager to return them.
12 hours ago, ScubaStef said:Not all arrests are "false" like you're claiming they are.
Where did I ever fucking claim that? I merely said that government corruption exists.
12 hours ago, ScubaStef said:There's a distinct difference between an arrest just not being worth taking through trial and an arrest being malicious.
Malicious or not, there shouldn’t ever be any talk of arrest for mere “sexually suggestive conduct,” if it isn’t harassment or similar.
12 hours ago, ScubaStef said:Your entire argument surrounding this charge is that "corrupt law enforcement officers" could abuse their arrest powers and arrest people JUST for flirting. I think I've explained clearly enough that what you're claiming not only makes no sense, but is also an extreme over exaggeration of the interpretation of that law.
No, you said that “oh just wait months for the court to sort you out, or the prosecutor.”
What I’m saying is the local law shouldn’t contradict the first amendment.
My interpretation of the law isn’t “extreme” or “exaggerated,” it’s “literal.”
12 hours ago, ScubaStef said:People aren't going to be arrested for just flirting in public.
Yes, they will. And thanks to the wording of this law, the cop will be scott-free.
12 hours ago, ScubaStef said:It's stupid and it will never hold up in any court in the US.
I would hope not, but it doesn’t matter - by that point, damage is done
12 hours ago, ScubaStef said:Nobody is going to lose a weapon license or CCW over the charge because it isn't violent in nature.
If you’re arrested, they take your gun. Even if it’s a petty arrest, and a legal gun.
-
On 2/19/2024 at 3:39 PM, MAK0 said:
This isn't how it works, though. Laws like these have never, in the history of this country, been voted on by the general populace. There are law votes that happen, such as for legalizing marijuana per state, but laws like "murder isn't allowed", "sexual assault isn't ok"; those are written by lawmakers and voted on by the corresponding local/state/federal agency.
I’m all for sexual assault being banned. That is not what we are talking about here.
I’m saying the government has no right, according to first amendment, to ban all “sexual conduct in public,” which it technically and litteraly does.
On 2/19/2024 at 3:39 PM, MAK0 said:While freedom of speech absolutely is a thing here, you really need to read up on what that means. I have the freedom to say whatever I want- to an extent.
Let’s read it together:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Quite a wordful, let me shrink it down to just the relevant parts:
”Congress (meaning, the government) shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech.”
It’s important to note that “speech” in this specific context the courts have repeatedly ruled can be reasonably interpreted to mean any form of civil expression.
On 2/19/2024 at 3:39 PM, MAK0 said:If I walk up to, let's say, Jennifer Anniston and tell her she is pretty/beautiful/hot/sexy, that is acceptable.
If I walk up to her, staring at her chest, saying "wow your tatas are MASSIVE you sweet sexy thing", she may have ground to stand on to press charges.
Do you believe that if one approaches a stranger, gives them a single compliment (even a crude one) and from that alone they’re guilty of a crime?
The definition of “harassment” is EXCESSIVE or REPEATED bothering. A single bothering that cannot be reasonably proven to be malicious is NOT grounds for ANY charges, according to first amendment.
If you’re then, hypothetically, told to leave her alone and refuse - at that point a reasonable person could suspect you guilty of “Criminal Harassment,” or as the local law words it – “Stalking”:
”115. Stalking
(a) A person who intentionally and maliciously follows or harasses another person who has made it known that they do not consent to such following or harassment is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a sentence of 12 hours, with parole eligible after 20 minutes.“So, in summary - there is no necessity to include vague terms, such as “sexually suggestive conduct,” as prohibited conduct, when (1) the term does not explicitly include illegal conduct, and (2) there are already other laws in place forbidding malicious harassment of any kind.On 2/19/2024 at 3:39 PM, MAK0 said:Freedom of speech does not protect you against extreme verbal/sexual harassment. It protects your rights to be able to speak out against government.
Your example had none of that. Your definition of “extreme” is scewed.
It protects the government from making laws which forbid civil expression, I was never talking about extreme.
-
On 2/19/2024 at 5:36 PM, ScubaStef said:
The court still makes a judgment based on the factors that were involved in the arrest. If the judge or magistrate determines that the criteria doesn’t meet the standards of the charge, then it’ll be dismissed. An officer making an arrest for “sexually suggestive conduct” is using discretion to make that arrest. It has nothing to do with corruption. Don’t just assume that an officer making an arrest based off of their interpretation of that law is being corrupt. It’s not uncommon for charges to be amended or reduced or even dismissed.I’m not assuming anything, this is the logical conclusion of things.
The contradiction is this:
1) The first amendment gives any person on U.S. soil the right to civil expression without government interfierence, unless there is a real safety issue.
2) The local law of San Andreas, section 217, explicitly and litteraly says “anyone who […] engages in […] sexually suggestive conduct […] is guilty of a misdemeanor.”
3) 2 litteraly contradicts 1, because not all “sexually explicit conduct” is inherently illegal, nor threatening safety.
The officer makes reasonable assesment, and that is to enforce the local law as written. In other words: they will likely interpret it litteraly, like I did.
The court should have assessed the bill this law came with and struck it down, or amended it then! Why is it up to us to get falsely arrested, unjustifiably stripped of our gunlicenses and wait for months, if not years, to resolve someone else’s fault?
I’m not assuming there will be corruption - I know there will be corruption. According to personal experience, anywhere there is a vague rule and someone has power to interpret it - they will always interpret it in their favor, unless directly supervised, which there usually isn’t enough resources to do.
No one expects the police to be perfect at their job. They’re human beings afterall, they aren’t there to do different interpretations of law. They’re there to enforce all laws, as written when it makes litteral sense.
However, laws have a high standard of being complicit with the US constitution. If they weren’t, what would be the point of the constitution?
-
On 2/16/2024 at 2:33 PM, MAK0 said:
So, if your gripe is the concern of corruption due to the wording, I would argue that is an in-character issue.
Then, let us vote on the laws and legislation that’s being enforced through fair, or at least seemingly-fair, elections in-character.
I am not a huge fan of being forced to rely on the forum to roleplay, which is my understanding a requirement to RP with the court at the time.
I think if a law is contradicting the constitution, it should be amended. Especially considering most players, including cops, don’t really know most of the constitution (if any).
-
On 2/16/2024 at 4:21 PM, ScubaStef said:
Google is your best friend in this case since you're going to talk about burden of proof now. "The burden of proof is a party's obligation to prove a charge, allegation, or defense". This basically means that the court process would determine whether the charge would hold or if it would not.
And what does the court use to determine if the law was broken or not? The local penal code.
The problem is the local penal code is too vague, and it allows corrupt officers to arrest anyone for any, quote, “sexually suggestive conduct” in a public place.
The reason I’m fixated on it is because it goes beyond government authority, according to first amendment.
-
16 hours ago, ScubaStef said:
Your interpretation of that specific law is going to be different from someone else's.
BINGO!!! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING!
That is my problem.
The law shouldn’t be so vague as to create an unnecessary “grey area,” which will undoubtedly be abused by corrupt government employees to enforce whichever interpretation of the law best fits their current interests.
And it’s so easy to fix too. The law already mentions “sexual misconduct,” that is sufficient.
By your own admission, “sexually suggestive conduct” may be lawful; so, why does the law, at least technically, penalize it whatsoever when it may be protected expression of first amendment?
The criminal burden of proof is “beyond any reasonable doubt,” not “it may be illegal or may not be illegal.” Clarity is ESSENTIAL to avoid corruption.
-
1 hour ago, ScubaStef said:
There's a very distinct difference between civil and criminal. I think a reasonable person would be able to tell the difference. The issue here is that you're talking specifically about flirting, which anyone would know isn't illegal. Now, the point where it would be considered criminal would be for example if person A was flirting with person B. Person B feels uncomfortable and tells person A to stop and that they feel uncomfortable. Person B doesn't stop and instead keeps going (and maybe even amps it up a bit by making vulgar statements). At that point, it could be considered lewd or dissolute conduct in public OR sexual assault, depending on certain factors. What the actual charge would come out to be would depend on the prosecutor. But since we don't have an active court system (and I doubt we ever will), that discretion is left up to the charging officer. You can argue that a lot of laws in the penal and vehicle code can be interpreted differently, so why fixate on one?
Because this law is problematic.
”Flirting” is just an example, but the underlying issue is that there is NOTHING INHERENTLY ILLEGAL with mere “sexually suggestive conduct.”
As for sexual harassment, that is a seperate offense that already exists.
Please, acknowledge my actual argument in regards to the discrepency that the law technically makes any “sexually suggestive conduct” potentially arrestable in public, even if it isn’t harassment or in any way malicious.
That is a problem. The law, including the constitution, applies to all. Including the government and legislators. The government does not have authority to punish free civil expression as per 1st amendment.
Thus, remove “sexually suggestive conduct” as an illegal act from the law, or clarify that it has to be “malicious.”
-
12 hours ago, ScubaStef said:
I'm really struggling to see how any reasonable law enforcement officer would interpret flirting to be "sexually suggestive conduct". Literally ANY reasonable person would see that as being an extreme stretch and it would never hold up in even the arraignment hearing, let alone in an actual trial. I see no reason to change the language of the charge in any way.
Again.
I am not saying that ANY flirting is "sexually suggestive conduct." Even though flirting by definition is behaving as though one is sexually attracted to someone...
What I'm saying is NOT ALL SEXUALLY SUGGESTIVE CONDUCT IS ILLEGAL, even if it's conducted in public.
I don't know how more clearly I can make this: just because something is "sexually suggestive" doesn't make it necessarily a crime. In fact, according to the first amendment right "Freedom of Expression," if your free, civil expression is merely "sexually suggestive," that does not inherently make it illegal.
That's why we must remove the mention of "sexually suggestive" from being listed as a prohibited act, when the government cannot prohibit such civil expression alone, due to the first amendment constitutional right.
-
On 2/12/2024 at 8:33 PM, ImperiumXVII said:
I disagree
You can subjectively disagree with my technical interpretation.
But you cannot objectively state, that any officer can't "legally" arrest any flirting individual in public, using the current wording of the law, if they interpret it like I do.
Laws are usually written to be interpreted literally, to be understood by as many people as possible. Therefore, we must amend the wording, as it won't lose any of its enforcement value, except against innocent people.
Option A) Remove unnecessary mention of "sexually suggestive conduct" as prohibited conduct. “Sexually suggestive conduct” alone may not be exclusively prohibited, as per 1st amendment.
Option B) Add a crucial clarity adjective, such as "excessive sexually suggestive conduct" or "unwarranted sexually suggestive conduct," in order to distinguish it from mere flirting, or similar consensual and mild sexually suggestive conduct.
Whatever you choose, it cannot stay this way. This is not okay, too vague.
As per your comment about "resolving this through IC means for fun," that’s a great idea; however, one prefers an active court system for that first. I would be doing that, if it was a relatively timely option.
[Discussions / Questions] San Andreas Penal Code
in Laws & Acts of San Andreas
Posted · Edited by Userone
clarity, punctuation
Let me apologize for late response, @livid, I initially missed it.
You don't speak for everyone.
I only swore a few times, and only when it was appropriate, given the fact that I've had to explain very basic dictionary and legal definitions to someone claiming to have 5 years of law enforcement experience.
I only began swearing after the deputy made false implications, that my direct quotes of the law, the constitution and the dictionary, and their literal interpretations are somehow "wrong," purely because of subjective reasons. These false implications compromise the freedom and safety of innocent people, by misrepresenting the law and people's rights.
My experience in copyright law studies gives me an insight in how the court interprets the wording of the law. Which is technically. The court interprets the law technically.
You merely assumed that because I am a Latvian citizen that I know more about Latvian law than the US law.
The truth of the matter is you know nothing about me. You keep saying I'm the one making assumptions, when I'm citing the literal US constitution, the local state law and the Oxford English dictionary.
So... you're saying that I shouldn't argue about the LSRP law, because I had LSRP law enforcement experience?
Or are you trying to imply that because my experience with being law enforcement was technically purely fictional, it's irrelevant to speak... on the topic of enforcing fictional laws, even though both are based on real laws? And we're talking about their real literal interpretations?
I disagree, because my fictional law enforcement experience isn't as relevant as my actual legal studies experience, when it comes to the question of how law is interpreted in court, and whether constitution holds authority over state law.
Labels like "good" and "bad" are subjective, meaning based off an opinion.
I've explained further how this could be dangerous here:
Even when I shove objective facts (dictionary definitions, legislation, constitution) into your face. It is, in fact, a bummer.
Mob mentality.
When Michelle asked if she was detained, the cops justified it with "smiling and waving at guys," which is flirting; which is almost exactly what @ScubaStef demanded from me: proof that police would unlawfully detain for mere flirting.
Again, they didn't have enough objective reasonable suspicion to legally detain Michelle for prostitution, because Michelle didn't offer sex for money. Yes, they could have investigated her legally, by parking the car legally instead of in the road, and approaching her for a consensual conversation. Instead, they detained her by ordering her to sit on the curb.
Again, if she was really stopped for cannabis, then why didn't the cops ever bring it up?
Explain.
You're contributing nothing useful to the discussion.