Arrested for wearing a hat by the Fashion Police

[billt]

So you believe that rights are granted to us by the government? All freedom is derived at the pleasure of the legislature?

No. Again your not paying attention. I'm not talking about "freedom". I'm speaking about THE LAW. You can say Hussein is an idiot. That is your right under the freedom of speech granted to you by the Constitution. That same Constitution does not give you the "right" to yell FIRE! in a crowded theater, or wear a hat in a courtroom when there is written law that says you can't. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? We're talking 5th grade Civics here, come on! Bill T.

 

[UncleMike]

Looks kind of like a comparison...

Your logic module appears to be defective.
Maybe you should have it looked at.

 

[Benny]

or wear a hat in a courtroom when there is written law that says you can't

Whoa, whoa, whoa; wait a second...

I thought it was clear that there was nothing actually written that a hat could not be worn in a courtroom, it was just up to the judge's discretion and that's what all of this stink was about in the first place.

And if it's a law, why wasn't he arrested on the spot; why did they give him a chance to take it off?

 

[ATOMonkey]

If you don't like a given law, you can take legal measures to get it changed. Write your Congressional Represenative, gather signatures on a petition, hire a legal team and challenge it in court, etc. But until it changes, and you violate it, you'll get busted and pay the price. When that goes away it's called anarchy. A bit like the streets of Cairo today. Idiot's everywhere doing whatever they want because they're pissed and don't like the way things are.

We have the opposite of anarchy, we have facism.

Right and wrong are absolutes. Passing a law to say that something is wrong simple because a government official says so, now means that right and wrong are no longer absolutes, but that are up to interpretation, and at worst, the whim of the government. When that happens, we no longer have a conscience to guide us. When the government tells us to imprison a man and take his property because he "broke the law" we do so with the mistaken impression that our actions are right simply because they're legal.

Laws are intended to be used to settle disputes, not control behavior. We stepped over that line long ago, and since then, people have been content with using the force of their government to tell their neighbor how to live. The agents of our government do so willingly because the legality of their action makes it "right."

I'm not arguing the application of law, I'm arguing the morality of it. Without a change in the public preception of law, and how it is supposed to be used, no meaningful change can be done at the legal level, thanks to our common law system.

Therefore, now is the time to change perceptions, so that we may later change the law.

 

[billt]

Don't confusing talking about crazy laws, with breaking crazy laws. I posted this because I wanted someone to explain this law.

I'll explain it. It is illegal to wear a hat in the courtroom this kid was arrested in. He knew it, he tested it by violating it, and he was arrested, jailed, and fined for it. You think it's a "crazy law". It doesn't matter what you think of it, if you break it you'll get the same treatment he did.

Fortunately our society is based on laws, not orders.

Yes it is. The downside for you is you have to obey even the ones you think are "crazy". Bill T.

 

[billt]

Laws are intended to be used to settle disputes, not control behavior.

So I can behave any way I see fit, and I won't be violating any law? Come on, you can't be serious? You're reading WAY TOO MUCH into this! Bill T.

 

[ATOMonkey]

No. Again your not paying attention. I'm not talking about "freedom". I'm speaking about THE LAW. You can say Hussein is an idiot. That is your right under the freedom of speech granted to you by the Constitution. That same Constitution does not give you the "right" to yell FIRE! in a crowded theater, or wear a hat in a courtroom when there is written law that says you can't. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? We're talking 5th grade Civics here, come on! Bill T.

Yelling fire in a CROWDED theatre can put people at risk. If your action leads to the harm of another, then that is malum in se, and very obviously not within your natural rights as a person.

The Constitution LIMITS the power of government, it does not grant rights to the people.

Rights are granted to us by our very existance.

How can you seperate freedom from the law, since it is that law that deprives freedom?

 

[Expat]

Why am I reminded of when my children were about 12?

 

[ATOMonkey]

So I can behave any way I see fit, and I won't be violating any law? Come on, you can't be serious? You're reading WAY TOO MUCH into this! Bill T.

No, you can very much break a law by behaving any way you want.

That is not the intention of the purpose of law.

Government is only intended to act as mediator, not controlling agent in the lives of the electorate.

That intention and purpose have been twisted by those with an agenda to limit freedom and control those around them. They have used the law as a weapon against their neighbors.

 

[billt]

And if it's a law, why wasn't he arrested on the spot; why did they give him a chance to take it off?

Perhaps the guy was being nice and cutting him a little slack. You know, like when you do something stupid in your car and get pulled over, and the cop is a nice guy and tells you to watch it and be more careful next time instead of writing you a $200.00 ticket. Ya' think?? Bill T.

 

[UncleMike]

Why am I reminded of when my children were about 12?

 

[Benny]

Perhaps the guy was being nice and cutting him a little slack. You know, like when you do something stupid in your car and get pulled over, and the cop is a nice guy and tells you to watch it and be more careful next time instead of writing you a $200.00 ticket. Ya' think?? Bill T.

Well, I've never been let off with a warning, but that's neither here nor there...

So you are saying it's an actual LAW, because Mr. Freeman said it "depends" on the judge. I wouldn't call that a law.

If it is a LAW, then the past 270 posts were really for nothing and not just sorta for nothing, because rampone's biggest stink was if it is that offense why isn't it a rule everywhere.

 

[lashicoN]

FACT: These buffoons came into a courtroom with video cameras in hand to deliberately cause a disruption by violating a policy they didn't happen to agree with, and wanted to challenge in order to get a reaction.

FACT: The guy was approached and told of the policy, and asked in a civil tone of voice to remove his cap, hat, or whatever.

FACT: The guy proceeded to tell this person, "he did not sign this policy", did not agree with it, and therefore refused to obey it.

FACT: When he refused he was forcibly removed and arrested, much to the joy of his buddies who all were busy as beavers filming away.

These idiot's went there to provoke a reaction by deliberately challenging authority in regards to disobeying a policy they did not agree with. They were very successful in getting the reaction they were looking for. What's the problem? Bill T.

Thanks for the rundown, Dwight Shrute. I'll call you if I see a bear.

Where in the flying Hell do you get this ???
You can't just make up "rights" as you go along!!
Photography is no more a God Given Right than the Sharia Law that says it's OK to kill your Wife or Kids if they **** you off.
Although, the Hard Line Muslims at least TRY to make it look like God approves.

Mike, you're such a dip. You certainly can and have to make up rights as you go along. When did we get the right to keep and bear arms? Was it from the beginning of time or was it when arms were created? You say some incredibly foolish stuff. We can tell you put no thought into what you say.

 

[Benny]

 

[UncleMike]

Mike, you're such a dip. You certainly can and have to make up rights as you go along. When did we get the right to keep and bear arms? Was it from the beginning of time or was it when arms were created? You say some incredibly foolish stuff. We can tell you put no thought into what you say.

God help us!!

 

[WabashMX5]

Explanation:

1. Courts have wide leeway in establishing conduct rules for the courtroom. The "no hats" rule -- an extremely common and traditional rule -- was one of this court's such rules.

2. The kid was warned first either (a) as a courtesy, if the rule actually was written; or (b) as a Due Process notification about the rule, if it wasn't written (since otherwise, it truly would be an affront to Due Process to hold the kid in contempt).

3. Once the kid was formally advised of the court's traditional and unsurprising rule, so that ignorance was no longer an excuse, he chose nevertheless to disregard it -- apparently fancying himself a Gandhi or MLK, engaging in noble civil disobedience based on his kindergarten-level misunderstanding that he doesn't have to obey laws or rules unless he signed them like a contract.

4. Upon being held in contempt for that disregard, said punk resisted a perfectly lawful arrest, justifying the police in using an appropriate level of force to end the disruption he'd caused by resisting (well-described as like a 4-year-old who doesn't want to leave Chuck E Cheese).

5. Like any civil disobedience, his actions had consequences -- here, 60 days in the clink.

...Thus once and for all demonstrating that civil disobedience only garners sympathy if you're vindicating some coherent principle. "I didn't sign your law, so I don't have to obey it" is not a coherent principle; it's juvenile nonsense with no greater philosophical weight than the trite old protest song "Signs."

I'm as skeptical as the next guy about high-handed and unanswerable displays of arbitrary State power. This ain't one of them.

 

[WabashMX5]

Put another way: Laws often vary between locales. Interstate speed limits are an easy example. For things like that (and this hat incident) where the offense is mala prohibitum rather than mala in se, you give a warning first -- whether that's a speed-limit sign or a judge's admonition. Once you're told what the rules are, you follow them or go elsewhere -- or, if you want to try to become a YouTube celebrity through "civil disobedience," you take your lumps like a man.

 

[Expat]

Put another way: Laws often vary between locales. Interstate speed limits are an easy example. For things like that (and this hat incident) where the offense is mala prohibitum rather than mala in se, you give a warning first -- whether that's a speed-limit sign or a judge's admonition. Once you're told what the rules are, you follow them or go elsewhere -- or, if you want to try to become a YouTube celebrity through "civil disobedience," you take your lumps like a man.

You are just wanting to hold us down. You must be with da Man.

 

[billt]

God help us!!

 

[Andre46996]

He was NOT arrested for wearing a hat!!!!

He was arrested for contempt of court!

He was asked to remove the hat or himself from the courtroom.

He refused.

He was dealt with.

He acted like a spoiled child at Chucky Cheese.

IT IS NOT ABOUT THE HAT!!

F The Hat!!

It is about a douchenozzle wanting to get a reaction he was looking for. He got that reaction. He is a Youtube hero to thousands of boys in their mother's basement.

He is the main point of debate on two different Indiana Gun forums.

He is getting what he wants.

Divide and conquer!
​