-
Posts
179 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Blogs
Forums
Calendar
News
Posts posted by ScubaStef
-
-
12 minutes ago, Userone said:
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.
If you say so.
13 minutes ago, Userone said: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.
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.
17 minutes ago, Userone said:And. I. Have. Acknowledged. It.
I can see that.
17 minutes ago, Userone said: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.
If they were really stoping her for the cannabis, why wouldn’t they say so?
It's not prejudicial at all. you just believe it is. And ask them, not me.
18 minutes ago, Userone said: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.
She wasn't ordered, she was asked. 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.. 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.
25 minutes ago, Userone said:To be able to LEGALLY detain someone, one has to have OBJECTIVE reasonable suspicion of a crime.
Sure, subjectively anyone can assume a woman dressed promiscuous waving on the corner is a prostitute. However, objectivity speaking - that isn’t enough, because she could also just be a woman who dresses promises 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.
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.
27 minutes ago, Userone said:I feel like I’m the one who’s being baited here.
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.
29 minutes ago, Userone said: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.
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.
33 minutes ago, Userone said:No. It is not a crime to merely be under influence, unless you are disturbing the public, damaging / stealing 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.
Quote313. Under The Influence of a Controlled Substance
(a) A person who uses or is under the influence of a controlled substance or dangerous substance without the proper permits or prescription to use such a substance is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a sentence of 5 hours, with parole eligible after 20 minutes.
(b) A person who uses or is under the influence of marijuana in public, or while committing any other crime, is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a sentence of 4 hours, with parole eligible after 20 minutes.
35 minutes ago, Userone said:Dressing promiscuous, standing on the curb and flirting isn’t necessary “autism,” you need to stop trying to diagnose other people. Seriously.
It doesn’t matter if they don’t have reasonable articulable suspicion 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.
Diagnosing someone with autism and possibly recognizing a sign of autism are two completely different things. You claim you know about business law, not mental health. Stop acting like you know everything. 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.
-
32 minutes ago, Userone said:
Because you’re spreading dangerous misinformation.
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.
38 minutes ago, Userone said:Sure, but court proceedings remain similar between civil and criminal court, at least in terminology.
Court PROCEEDINGS remain similar? I don't think so. Also, I said business law and criminal law. Nowhere did I mention civil. You said you studied business law and we're talking about criminal law here. There's also a difference between civil and criminal.
40 minutes ago, Userone said:The cop admits Michelle was stopped for “smiling and waving at guys,” which is flirting.
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.
42 minutes ago, Userone said:No assumption, that’s what the cop said when Michelle asked if she was detained.
Where did he say (verbatim) that she was stopped just for flirting? To me, it sounds more like he suspected her to be involved in prostitution.
43 minutes ago, Userone said:Cops didn’t bring up any suspicion of marijuana possession.
Read up.
43 minutes ago, Userone said:Stop derailing.
I'm literally responding to you. Stop trying to bait people, this isn't a courtroom.
44 minutes ago, Userone said: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.
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.
45 minutes ago, Userone said:They didn’t bring up any weed, though. They said they stopped Michelle for “smiling and waving at guys,” which is flirting.
Already addressed.
46 minutes ago, Userone said: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.
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.
47 minutes ago, Userone said:You said it’s “autism,” which isn’t a crime or relevant whatsoever.
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.
-
46 minutes ago, Userone said:
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.
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.
I think YOU are trolling.
I objectively proved my point and disproved @ScubeStef ‘s inconsistencies with objective evidence.
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.
If “everyone” is you and your friends. You are unempathetic.
The whole point of this section is to discuss law, aka “penal code.”
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.
It was an illegal detainment for flirting, word for what what @ScubaStef demanded from me.
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.
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.”
So rude.
Anyway, watch me change every problematic law one way or another.
At this point I don't even know why you're still going at it. Criminal law and business law are significantly different types of law. 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 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. You brought suspicion to yourself for more than one reason, including the indicator of marijuana use. Don't leave out key bits of information. Also, "better part of a decade"? I don't think so. And while I'm on that topic, I will say that SWAT and SEB are still allowed to box suspects in.
You really haven't done anything throughout this discussion we've had but embarrass yourself. 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. 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". 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.-
1
-
-
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. 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. Neither the charge nor the wording of the definition of the charge is unconstitutional and your interpretation of it is wrong. 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.
-
8 minutes ago, Userone said:
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.
I'm the one that explained it. There's no need me to reread what I said.
8 minutes ago, Userone said:It concerns me that there’s a law enforcement officer who disagrees with the Oxford English Dictionary.
I'm not disagreeing with the dictionary, I'm disagreeing with you.
8 minutes ago, Userone said:Not counting the dictionary.
No idea what you mean by this. The dictionary definition doesn't match up with the definition you're making up.
8 minutes ago, Userone said: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.
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.
8 minutes ago, Userone said:Please, clarify.
Sure.
6 hours ago, Userone said:You interpreted me claiming that government corruption exists to mean that it’s everywhere or rampant. That’s a misinterpretation.
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. What I was stating was my understanding and experience of your view on the government and its apparent corruption.
28 minutes ago, Userone said: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.
“
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. Also, how is this relevant to the response I gave you about the TV series you were referencing???
33 minutes ago, Userone said: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.
So again as I stated earlier, completely unheard of. No single person can just be incarcerated and act as an "undercover inmate" to do what you were intending on doing. "Potential misconduct" isn't necessarily proven misconduct. There has to be an actual sustained finding of misconduct for there to be any credibility to the claim. 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.
37 minutes ago, Userone said:sexually suggestive conduct has “sexually” as its adjective
flirt includes ALL playful sexual advances, consensual or not, nice or not.
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. Just because the word "sexually" is in the term doesn't mean it applies to any other definition that mentions the word "sexually".
39 minutes ago, Userone said:You should be embarrassed.
You’re trying to argue that “flirting” is not “sexually suggestive conduct,” even though the dictionary says it litteraly is.
Where does the dictionary specifically mention the term "sexually suggestive conduct" under the definition you cited?
41 minutes ago, Userone 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.”
I guess I did.
You're picking and choosing to acknowledge what I said and leaving out the key details. Read the scenario again.
42 minutes ago, Userone said:Nothing but subjective opinions, not a single citation or objective contradiction.
Meanwhile, I threw three dictionaries at you last response. Which you disagree with.
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.
44 minutes ago, Userone said:I guess reading the dictionary definition is just unclear and unrealistic.
Your takeaway from what the dictionary definition is and what the law states are two different things.
45 minutes ago, Userone said:Well, then I guess the Oxford fucking Dictionary is wrong, then. Must be!
Your understanding of it is. You're implying that "sexually suggestive conduct" is included in the definition of flirting and it isn't.
51 minutes ago, Userone said:It is flirting, technically. The legal issue that he’s NAKED.
Seperate crime from the one being discussed.
I think you're the only person that would consider that to be flirting. The average person would not.
52 minutes ago, Userone said:Dictionary definition.
Again, cite the dictionary definition of the word "flirt" or "flirting" where it SPECIFICALLY mentions the term "sexually suggestive conduct".
53 minutes ago, Userone said: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.
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.
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. 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.
-
3 hours ago, Userone said:
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.
Are you sure that's EXACTLY what I said? Read it again.
3 hours ago, Userone said: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.
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. 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.
3 hours ago, Userone said:Any group of people with a goal is an organization. Organization and agency are synonymous.
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.
3 hours ago, Userone said: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“
And yet this still has nothing to do with the charge you keep going back to.
3 hours ago, Userone said:The Oxford Learner’s dictionary’s definition for the verb “interpret:”
“to decide that something has a particular meaning and to understand it”
And you're using it in the wrong context.
3 hours ago, Userone said:I guess 60-days-in is pure fiction, then.
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;
QuoteThe television series follows seven individuals as they volunteer to go undercover, spending 60 days as inmates in the Clark County Jail (also known as the Michael L. Becher Adult Correctional Complex), in Jeffersonville, Indiana. Their goal is to obtain evidence of questionable or illegal activities within the jail that might be missed by the correctional officers and surveillance systems.
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. 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.
3 hours ago, Userone said: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.
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.
3 hours ago, Userone said: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.
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.
3 hours ago, Userone said: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.
Did I say it was sexually suggestive? If I did, please quote exactly where I said that. 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.
3 hours ago, Userone said:Your example is redundant and irrelevant for aforementioned reasons. Read them again and try again.
It's not redundant and it's very much relevant. You just aren't thinking through it clearly or realistically.
3 hours ago, Userone said:Reffer to aforementioned dictionary definition of the verb “flirt.”
I did 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. 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.
3 hours ago, Userone said: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.
To me at least, it sure seems like you think government corruption is a lot more prevalent than it really is.
3 hours ago, Userone said: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.
Flirting is not sexually suggestive conduct and corruption would not apply.
3 hours ago, Userone said:Only because you keep trying to imply that government corruption doesn’t exist.
I never said it doesn't exist. I'm saying it isn't as common as you seem to think it is.
3 hours ago, Userone said: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.
The scenario I gave you is relevant because it goes over when the charge you're referring to would be applicable. If you don't understand that at all, I'm sorry.
-
16 minutes ago, Userone said:
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.
We're not even going to go there. And not once did I claim that simply flirting is illegal in any way whatsoever. You're just refusing to understand. 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.
17 minutes ago, Userone said: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.”
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. 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.
24 minutes ago, Userone said:You interpreted me claiming that government corruption exists to mean that it’s everywhere or rampant. That’s a misinterpretation.
There's no misinterpretation there whatsoever. I think your understanding of the word "interpret" is a little off. 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.
26 minutes ago, Userone said:Which is why it’s important to amend the law to align with the constitution.
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.
27 minutes ago, Userone said: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.
To be able to enforce the law, you have to have a basic understanding of it. Thanks for the clarifying pointers, by the way.
28 minutes ago, Userone said:Why lewd and dissolude? For the words or for being naked? Being naked is a seperate offense already, which is irrelevant here.
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.
29 minutes ago, Userone said:Justify.
Already done. Read through it.
30 minutes ago, Userone said: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 problem with this flirting.
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.
31 minutes ago, Userone said:Sure thing, no issues there. Right? No potential for a corrupt cop to take advantage of a vunerable person, or anything like that!
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.
1 hour ago, Userone said: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.
There's no corruption involved in the creation of this criminal charge. I have no idea what you're on about.
1 hour ago, Userone said:I’m talling about a specific law here, I merely mentioned that government corruption exists.
I know. Just about every one of your replies brings up corruption.
1 hour ago, Userone said:Provide me with one good, valid and RELEVANT example.
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.
-
8 minutes ago, Userone said:
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.
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.
11 minutes ago, Userone said:So, you’re just gonna glance over how we just had a misinterpretation?
How was that a misinterpretation in any way whatsoever?
12 minutes ago, Userone said:Doesn’t line up with what? Your personal opinion, or the dictionary definition of the words?
I'm referring to your misunderstanding of criminal law, not my personal opinion or the dictionary definition of something.
14 minutes ago, Userone said:Your opinion here is irrelevant.
OK.
15 minutes ago, Userone said: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.
Dictionary definitions aren't always used in the field. Not every law enforcement officer has bifocals and a dictionary handy during an arrest.
16 minutes ago, Userone said:Not really. Neither of us are technically lawyers.
You're comparing roleplay experience in a video game to a real life job in law enforcement. 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.
18 minutes ago, Userone said: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!
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.
20 minutes ago, Userone said:A nude person in public is extremely disruptive in our society.
While I am talking about mere “sexually suggestive conduct.”
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.
21 minutes ago, Userone said: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.
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.
22 minutes ago, Userone said:Cops will always take the guns of their arrestees and won’t eagerly hand them back.
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.
23 minutes ago, Userone said:Not always.
Do explain.
24 minutes ago, Userone said: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.”
This has no correlation to the statement you originally made about corruption through "excessive negligence".
25 minutes ago, Userone said:That much is clear.
Just stop. Please.
-
7 hours ago, Userone said:
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.
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.
7 hours ago, Userone said:Government corruption existing does not make all, or even the majority of the government, necessarily corrupt.
Exactly.
7 hours ago, Userone said: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?
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.
7 hours ago, Userone said: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.
I think you're just pulling words off of the internet at this point and trying to make your arguments sound more educated. Your claim of flirting alone being illegal is not an educated or logical interpretation of this specific law.
7 hours ago, Userone said: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.
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.
7 hours ago, Userone said: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.
My bad, it would be lewd or dissolute conduct in public and indecent exposure. I'll correct myself there.
7 hours ago, Userone said: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.
If you think the example (one, not plural by the way) I gave you is extreme, I'm at a loss for words.
7 hours ago, Userone said: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.
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.
7 hours ago, Userone said: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.
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.
7 hours ago, Userone said: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.
Corruption isn't a mistake, it's a conscious decision. And again, misinterpretation is not intentional.
7 hours ago, Userone said:Bingo! Let’s call it “intentional ignorance.”
I did account for reasonable negligence seperately also.
I think you forgot what you said already, so I'll quote your exact statement here;
12 hours ago, Userone said: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.
Reasonable and excessive are two completely different words with different meanings. Pick one and stick with it.
7 hours ago, Userone said:You will eat your words later, I promise.
I have no idea what you're trying to talk about here but I'm not even gonna entertain it.
-
1
-
-
59 minutes ago, Userone said:
My LITTERAL interpretation of the law comes directly from said law, quoting it word-for-word.
It is not false.
I'm sorry, but it is.
59 minutes ago, Userone said: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.
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.
1 hour ago, Userone said: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.
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.
1 hour ago, Userone said: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.
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 have absolutely no idea where you're getting this information or even the idea from.
1 hour ago, Userone said: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.
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.
1 hour ago, Userone said:No one should be getting arrested for mere “sexually suggestive conduct,” which isn’t malicious or criminal harassment.
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. The "sexually suggestive conduct" there is that the man is naked 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.
1 hour ago, Userone said: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…
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.
1 hour ago, Userone said: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.
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. Misinterpretation is never intentional. If you "intentionally misinterpret" something, then that's more along the lines of ignorance. As for the corruption claim in your last sentence, I'm not even going to entertain it.
1 hour ago, Userone said:Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
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.
-
1 hour ago, Userone said:
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.
The arrest is still technically lawful when it shouldn’t be. The local law still contradicts the 1st amendment. That’s the problem.
But the cop just gets to do it again and again until the law is fixed.
Last I checked, any time you’re arrested - they take your weapons. Often they aren’t eager to return them.
Where did I ever fucking claim that? I merely said that government corruption exists.
Malicious or not, there shouldn’t ever be any talk of arrest for mere “sexually suggestive conduct,” if it isn’t harassment or similar.
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.”
Yes, they will. And thanks to the wording of this law, the cop will be scott-free.
I would hope not, but it doesn’t matter - by that point, damage is done
If you’re arrested, they take your gun. Even if it’s a petty arrest, and a legal gun.
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. Just because you claim government corruption exists doesn't mean it runs rampant. We're roleplaying a realistic system to the best of our abilities with the resources we have available to us in a video game. 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. 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.
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. 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. 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. 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.
-
3 hours ago, Userone said:
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 explicit 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?
Again, you're assuming that an officer that makes an arrest based on their interpretation of the charge is being malicious in the arrest. Just because they make the arrest based on their interpretation of the law DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE CHARGE WILL STICK IN COURT. 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. 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. Not all arrests are "false" like you're claiming they are. There's a distinct difference between an arrest just not being worth taking through trial and an arrest being malicious. 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. People aren't going to be arrested for just flirting in public. It's stupid and it will never hold up in any court in the US. Nobody is going to lose a weapon license or CCW over the charge because it isn't violent in nature.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Userone said:
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.
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. -
2 hours ago, Userone said:
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.
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. As @MAK0 already said, this is how laws work in the US. This is why we have prosecutors and defense attorneys along with internal affairs. If you feel as if you were wrongfully arrested, you can file a complaint with internal affairs. If that goes nowhere, you go to the courts. And again, I'm really confused as to why we're fixated on a sexually oriented crime when there are MANY other laws in the penal code and vehicle code that can be interpreted differently. What's so significant about this SPECIFIC charge?
-
4 hours ago, Userone said:
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.”
So I'm gonna go ahead and refer to my last response and again mention the fact that a lot of laws can be interpreted differently. Your interpretation of that specific law is going to be different from someone else's. Sexual harassment is not a charge in the penal code because it's such a broad term that it has to be split up between the two charges I already mentioned. Sexually suggestive conduct itself could be a number of things that may be illegal if done in public, so taking that out of the definition can affect other circumstances where that type of conduct would be illegal. Again, I'm not sure why you're fixated on this specific charge of all the different laws we have under the penal and vehicle code. The definition is fine the way it is. Just because you interpret it differently doesn't mean everyone else is going to see it the same way.
-
1
-
-
42 minutes ago, Userone said:
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.
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?
-
On 2/12/2024 at 9:16 PM, Userone said:
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.
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.
-
Moved to about the community.
-
30 minutes ago, kaibr said:
I reckon for the sake of RNG and adding a bit of randomness to it. If you attempt to run with shackles, every 5~ seconds it's a 50/50 chance of being forced into /ragdoll and falling over.You can buy handcuffs online, in-stores and everywhere, varying quality sure but I wouldn't say they should be limited for the sake of cops having something special, not like only cops have them IRL, unless I'm missing your point here.
My point is if the /handcuff and /unhandcuff command is going to be used for civilians as well, the current code would need to be redone to allow for anyone to use the command, assuming they're either on duty in a faction that allows for handcuffing, or in possession of a pair of handcuffs in their inventory.
-
13 minutes ago, Cursed_King said:
In my opinion we should have an RP hub with the current state of PB, alot of new players spawn and have no idea what to do next, if they figure out there is a place where players usually gathers they'd go there and kickstart their story.
I'd rather have an RP hub than roaming in an empty city.
Lack of players are an issue at this moment regardless whether or not there's some sort of "rp hub". Every time I log in, I see advertisements for open businesses such as different bars and clubs. People can go to those businesses and promote roleplay there not only for their character, but for the business owner and their employees as well. Having a hub of some sort will only take away from businesses that rely on roleplay to run.
-
1
-
-
If we're talking about shackles, it's possible for players to walk with them on, but they can only move their legs as far as the chain will let them. You definitely can't take off running with them on. As far as /handcuff goes, I don't like it being exactly the same as the existing command that we already have for law enforcement factions. I'd be okay with something like /restrain and /unrestrain but the handcuff command, probably not. I also feel like restraints should be limited to something like ASP's trifolds or any other zip-tie type restraints and not handcuffs.
-
I'm cool with the idea of social media, but to have some sort of "rp hub" that people go to just throws it way off for me. The mall on SAMP was like this and we had all sorts of issues with that. You'd have gang roleplayers from Idlewood showing up causing problems and people DMing and just getting into a mess of different situations. With social media, people can actually socialize with each other and arrange different types of events that are already advertised in the #events channel on discord. Far more appropriate (in my opinion) than some sort of hub where people from all sorts of areas (some of which probably won't mix well with each other) meet up and cause problems.
-
I'd like some more input regarding this suggestion so we can determine whether or not to forward it.
-
L&A.
[Discussions / Questions] San Andreas Penal Code
in Laws & Acts of San Andreas
Posted
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. You're spewing your uneducated opinion about a criminal law 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. There's no reason for the law to be changed and that's that. If your character gets detained or arrested for "flirting in public", absolutely nothing stops you from handling it IC. 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.