Florida cop, Marine vet, arrested for wearing ‘Anonymous’ mask warns of ‘a war coming

[G.I.B.]

I commend the guy for standing up for what he believes.

It does not deter from the fact that the act was a violation of the law.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Red James Cash]

Guess it is because you cant see something as plain as the morning sun shining in your face.Have a nice life Bon Voyagee,dont forget to write

 

[G.I.B.]

Guess it is because you cant see something as plain as the morning sun shining in your face.Have a nice life Bon Voyagee,dont forget to write

I have written.

It was clear, concise and well thought out. I presented a reasonable debate to the given situation while applying logic, reasoning and a smattering of common sense.

And I get the sun shining in my face response….

 

[TheRingFinder]

GIB - The law clearly states that you can not wear a mask : With the intent to intimidate, threaten, abuse, or harass any other person.
Please go and read the law again, the officer knew his rights and he knows the law they would try to arrest him with. This is not an opinion. Go to:

Chapter 876 Section 155 - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate < - - - It is very clearly written.

 

[G.I.B.]

There are NO exceptions in the law for religion... You can search the entire law, you will not find a single exception for adults wearing it because of their religion.

TH: Sorry, got sidetracked.

It's buried in case law.

I'd be happy to copy and cite specific cases but I charge $85 an hour for research and I'm a slow reader.



Freeman was denied the drivers license, which I was happy to read the ruling. But- the above Religious Freedom Act still applies- just not to driving privileges.

 

[G.I.B.]

GIB - The law clearly states that you can not wear a mask : With the intent to intimidate, threaten, abuse, or harass any other person.
Please go and read the law again, the officer knew his rights and he knows the law they would try to arrest him with. This is not an opinion. Go to:

Chapter 876 Section 155 - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate < - - - It is very clearly written.

I have read it, please read my previous post regarding specific and general intent. This is a prima facia case.

Again, I applaud his convictions. He knew, or should have known, he was in violation of the law.

Or am I missing your point?

 

[TheRingFinder]

Sorry GIB - You made your mind up and no matter what fact or truth I put before you; you'll have none of it. maybe you should move to the "right coast"

 

[G.I.B.]

Sorry GIB - You made your mind up and no matter what fact or truth I put before you; you'll have none of it. maybe you should move to the "right coast"

Please, explain how what he did was not a violation of the law?

I've explained how it was. Please point out how I'm wrong, other than, 'because I said so'.

Please, by all means, put a fact here~


There was a guy who intentionally got himself arrested in Naples Fl on a boat. He was protesting an anti-anchoring law. He got arrested. The law was thrown out as unconstitutional.

He went in knowing, and intending, to get arrested.

He changed that law. I really respect his convictions.

What the cop did was against the law. I respect his convictions. But his actions were in violation of the law.

And my signature, left coast, is geographical, not political. I'm registered NPA and stick by that.

 

[Dave44]

Really Gib? "It was clear, concise and well thought out. I presented a reasonable debate to the given situation while applying logic, reasoning and a smattering of common sense."

If you have to say it about yourself it may not be accurate, self aggrandizing maybe. Wait for another to praise your efforts first.. There will be a few soon enough. Then you can say it as often as you need too?

 

[TheRingFinder]

He was not engaged of any of these items:

(1) With the intent to deprive any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws or for the purpose of preventing the constituted authorities of this state or any subdivision thereof from, or hindering them in, giving or securing to all persons within this state the equal protection of the laws;

(2) With the intent, by force or threat of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person because of the person’s exercise of any right secured by federal, state, or local law or to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from exercising any right secured by federal, state, or local law;

(3) With the intent to intimidate, threaten, abuse, or harass any other person; or

(4) While she or he was engaged in conduct that could reasonably lead to the institution of a civil or criminal proceeding against her or him, with the intent of avoiding identification in such a proceeding.

 

[G.I.B.]

Intent relates to the condition of mind of the person who commits the act, his or her purpose in doing it. The law recognizes two types of intent, general intent and specific intent.
General intent
General intent is the intent to engage in conduct. Thus, in this case, it is not necessary for the state to prove that the defendant intended the precise harm or the precise result which eventuated. Rather, the state is required to prove that the defendant intentionally and not inadvertently or accidentally engaged in (his/her) actions. In other words, the state must prove that the defendant's actions were intentional, voluntary and knowing rather than unintentional, involuntary and unknowing.Specific intent
Specific intent is the intent to achieve a specific result. A person acts "intentionally" with respect to a result when (his/her) conscious objective is to cause such result. What the defendant intended is a question of fact for you to determine.

As stated earlier, his intent was general, and it clearly falls under sub section (3) which is broad in it's scope.

The above should clearly define the difference concerning the legal argument.

Dave44, anything worthwhile to add to the discussion, or just a jab?

 

[Red James Cash]

Color cannot be explained to a man who has been blind his whole life

 

[G.I.B.]

Color cannot be explained to a man who has been blind his whole life

That's true, but it does not address the legal discussion with any discernible argument as to the officers actions being legal or illegal.

 

[Dave44]

I just get a kick out of anyone who is claiming to be rational and intelligent before they offer it. You may well make a valid argument, But stating that yours is the only correct assumption by impugning the opposition first seems irrational, GIB.

 

[G.I.B.]

I just get a kick out of anyone who is claiming to be rational and intelligent before they offer it. You may well make a valid argument, But stating that yours is the only correct assumption by impugning the opposition first seems irrational, GIB.

Dave, I'm open to an opposing viewpoint that has some more merit to it beyond, because I said so. If I'm missing something, I'll take this as very educational.

If you start at the beginning of the thread I have been offering (what I consider) a logical and rational statement of my opinion. Way, before I said it.

I'm not stating mine is the only one and is thereby correct by default- but I have yet to hear why his arrest was illegal.

 

[Dave44]

GIB "If you start at the beginning of the thread I have been offering (what I consider) a logical and rational statement of my opinion. Way, before I said it."

This is my only point,, just becuase you say it's logical doesn't make it so. I have been following,, I find myself torn on the issue and not sure how I fall on it,, I kinda see your point, but it looks like the law means an "obvious" attempt. I say that because laws are supposed to be reactive, not proactive (in our country).

Laws were not meant to limit liberty, just because you look funny. Many Americans have forgotten that Lady Justice is blind in the wake of 9/11 and the DHS take over.

But I wonder if the fellow did the right thing, since the events transpired this way, maybe he did?

 

[G.I.B.]

I say that because laws are supposed to be reactive, not proactive (in our country).

But I wonder if the fellow did the right thing, since the events transpired this way, maybe he did?

I agree- but some laws are proactive.

Did you know that in some places it's illegal for a known prostitute to simply stand on the corner if she has AIDS. It's assumed that she is conducting business, and the fact that she has AIDS… very messy this civilized society we live in some times.

Sometimes laws are USED, not based on their spirit of intent, but on the letter of the law. It would have been easier for this officer to just comply, but he was making a statement.

Was the statement worth it? That is another big question.

Who is willing to stand in front of a tank?

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Please, explain how what he did was not a violation of the law?

I've explained how it was. Please point out how I'm wrong, other than, 'because I said so'.

Please, by all means, put a fact here~


There was a guy who intentionally got himself arrested in Naples Fl on a boat. He was protesting an anti-anchoring law. He got arrested. The law was thrown out as unconstitutional.

He went in knowing, and intending, to get arrested.

He changed that law. I really respect his convictions.

What the cop did was against the law. I respect his convictions. But his actions were in violation of the law.

And my signature, left coast, is geographical, not political. I'm registered NPA and stick by that.

So all anyone has to do is claim religious freedom and they can violate the law....?

If criminals had any sense they would just dress up as a muslim woman. They could walk in any gas station or store and rob it...

OFFICER "What did the theif look like?"

Store owner "officer they were wrapped head to toe in a black bed sheet, but they did have dark eyes...."

We will NOT go quietly into the night!

 

[Dave44]

GIB
"Was the statement worth it? That is another big question.

Who is willing to stand in front of a tank?"

I am with you there! Don't really see how a good lawyer wouldn't rip up the street corner law though? Back to proving intent, I guess.

OOps,, did I say good lawyer? I meant competent.

 

[katdancing]

I admire the former Marine for exercising his right to free assembly & upholding his oath. If more Americans would use their God given freedoms & choices, we could turn this Nation of ours to what is was originally. Nothing comes without sacrifice!