If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WRCB)   "48-year-old Patti M. Cole faces a charge of disorderly conduct after leaving the message on a broken toilet in front of a home she owns in Mount Pleasant"   (wrcbtv.com) divider line 72
    More: Fail, Mount Pleasant, woman charged  
•       •       •

8982 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Mar 2013 at 2:37 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



72 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-17 10:10:50 AM  

Taylor Mental: BigBooper: kevinboehm: The thing I don't understand... Why a toilet?

The defendant's daughter was trying to flush a big bag of meth and it plugged up the toilet. To get the drugs, the cops tore up the toilet.

Thus the broken disassembled toilet.

The pic clearly shows the tank and bowl intact. The cops obviously took the time to get the necessary tools to unfasten the four bolts holding the tank to the bowl and the bowl to the floor. They should have just smacked it with the same sledge hammer they always have on hand when executing a search warrant.


We can't see the base of the toilet, and TFA describes it as a "broken toilet". The toilet is obviously not shattered, but we don't know if the cops unscrewed the bolts, or if they just grabbed a handy crowbar. And all my toilets are attached with two bolts, not four. A good kick would easily break out the porcelain around those bolts.

I'm going to say the odds are much higher that the toilet is busted out rather than the cops took the time to be polite and disassemble the toilet.
 
2013-03-17 10:16:17 AM  

wambu: Image forensically restored in the FARK Laboratory.
[i.imgur.com image 349x403]

/fail to see the problem


Now enhance that image. Zoom in on that speck in grid A6. It's a reflection! Zoom in further and enhance resolution. Get back to us when you have a picture of the perpetrator.

/It's science biatches!
 
2013-03-17 10:30:22 AM  
2.bp.blogspot.com

It's vulga'.  I won't 'ave it!
 
2013-03-17 10:36:52 AM  

BigBooper: BarkingUnicorn: BigBooper: She created a sign, visible to the public, containing the word "F*ck". Can you site one case where the use of that word on a public sign has been found to be protected speech?

How about Cohen v. California?

"Appellant was convicted of violating that part of Cal. Penal Code 415 which prohibits "maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person . . . by . . . offensive conduct," for wearing a jacket bearing the words "fark the Draft" in a corridor of the Los Angeles Courthouse. The Court of Appeal held that "offensive conduct" means "behavior which has a tendency to provoke others to acts of violence or to in turn disturb the peace," and affirmed the conviction. Held: Absent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions, the State may not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, make the simple public display of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense. Pp. 22-26."

You're right. In 1971 arguably the most liberal Supreme court in the history of the nation over turned a conviction of a man who was protesting the Vietnam war.

Let's say this by some miracle makes it all the way up to TODAY's Supreme court. How confident are you that the modern court is going to decide for this defendant? A defendant not protesting an undeclared war, but the arrest of her meth dealing daughter.


I'd wager any amount that you care to name.

There's another difference between the California law and Tennesse's:  the latter is so vague that a defendant is not given fair notice of what is prohibited.  The Cali law explicitly prohibited lewd or vulgar language uttered in the presence of women or children.  Somehow that issue did not come before the Court, though it was noted in a footnote to the decision.
 
2013-03-17 10:42:11 AM  

BigBooper: Taylor Mental: BigBooper: kevinboehm: The thing I don't understand... Why a toilet?

The defendant's daughter was trying to flush a big bag of meth and it plugged up the toilet. To get the drugs, the cops tore up the toilet.

Thus the broken disassembled toilet.

The pic clearly shows the tank and bowl intact. The cops obviously took the time to get the necessary tools to unfasten the four bolts holding the tank to the bowl and the bowl to the floor. They should have just smacked it with the same sledge hammer they always have on hand when executing a search warrant.

We can't see the base of the toilet, and TFA describes it as a "broken toilet". The toilet is obviously not shattered, but we don't know if the cops unscrewed the bolts, or if they just grabbed a handy crowbar. And all my toilets are attached with two bolts, not four. A good kick would easily break out the porcelain around those bolts.

I'm going to say the odds are much higher that the toilet is busted out rather than the cops took the time to be polite and disassemble the toilet.


It's not clear from TFA that the toilet in the pic is the one the cops "searched," or that they ever found drugs in the mother's house.  If  they had, I'm sure she would be with her daughter in jail.  The bust must have gone down at the daughter's residence.
 
2013-03-17 10:52:11 AM  

BigBooper: BarkingUnicorn: BigBooper: Cop or not, placing a sign in your front yard with an obscenity on it is liable to get you charged with disorderly conduct in almost any town and city in the country.

And it will be dismissed by any judge with a shred of respect for the law.  You might want to research what "disorderly conduct" means.

O.K.
2010 Tennessee Code
Title 39 - Criminal Offenses
Chapter 17 - Offenses Against Public Health, Safety and Welfare
Part 3 - Disorderly Conduct and Riots

39-17-305. Disorderly conduct.
(a)A person commits an offense who, in a public place and with intent to cause public annoyance or alarm:
     (1)Engages in fighting or in violent or threatening behavior;
     (2)Refuses to obey an official order to disperse issued to maintain public safety in dangerous proximity to a fire, hazard or other emergency; or
     (3)Creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act that serves no legitimate purpose.
(b)A person also violates this section who makes unreasonable noise that prevents others from carrying on lawful activities.
(c)A violation of this section is a Class C misdemeanor.
[Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1.]

Hmmm. Obviously vague, but a(3) seems to fit pretty well to me.

And your comment about this case being dismissed by "any judge with a shred of respect for the law". This is happening in Tennessee! How many judges in that state are going to throw this out?


Your interpretation of the statute is incorrect.

Number 3 requires the creation of "hazardous or physically offensive condition..."

The display of a sign, neither was "hazardous" and it didn't create a "physically offensive condition".  It would have been different if they had placed the toilet in the middle of the road where it could have interfered with traffic, but this was in her front yard.

Even it was hazardous or created a physically offensive condition, number 3 still wouldn't apply as the message had a legitimate purpose, in that it was a protest against actions taken by an agent of the state, and thus protected free speech.
 
2013-03-17 10:58:29 AM  
Cops like this are why it's important to never let the camel's nose under the tent on the 1st amendment.  Hateful speech is free speech.  The corrupt don't need any more ammunition for disrespecting the rights we all have.
 
2013-03-17 11:05:50 AM  

BigBooper: BarkingUnicorn: BigBooper: She created a sign, visible to the public, containing the word "F*ck". Can you site one case where the use of that word on a public sign has been found to be protected speech?

How about Cohen v. California?

"Appellant was convicted of violating that part of Cal. Penal Code 415 which prohibits "maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person . . . by . . . offensive conduct," for wearing a jacket bearing the words "fark the Draft" in a corridor of the Los Angeles Courthouse. The Court of Appeal held that "offensive conduct" means "behavior which has a tendency to provoke others to acts of violence or to in turn disturb the peace," and affirmed the conviction. Held: Absent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions, the State may not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, make the simple public display of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense. Pp. 22-26."

You're right. In 1971 arguably the most liberal Supreme court in the history of the nation over turned a conviction of a man who was protesting the Vietnam war.

Let's say this by some miracle makes it all the way up to TODAY's Supreme court. How confident are you that the modern court is going to decide for this defendant? A defendant not protesting an undeclared war, but the arrest of her meth dealing daughter.


Looks like *someone* doesn't understand precedent.
 
2013-03-17 11:41:09 AM  

JeffreyScott: BigBooper: BarkingUnicorn: BigBooper: Cop or not, placing a sign in your front yard with an obscenity on it is liable to get you charged with disorderly conduct in almost any town and city in the country.

And it will be dismissed by any judge with a shred of respect for the law.  You might want to research what "disorderly conduct" means.

O.K.
2010 Tennessee Code
Title 39 - Criminal Offenses
Chapter 17 - Offenses Against Public Health, Safety and Welfare
Part 3 - Disorderly Conduct and Riots

39-17-305. Disorderly conduct.
(a)A person commits an offense who, in a public place and with intent to cause public annoyance or alarm:
     (1)Engages in fighting or in violent or threatening behavior;
     (2)Refuses to obey an official order to disperse issued to maintain public safety in dangerous proximity to a fire, hazard or other emergency; or
     (3)Creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act that serves no legitimate purpose.
(b)A person also violates this section who makes unreasonable noise that prevents others from carrying on lawful activities.
(c)A violation of this section is a Class C misdemeanor.
[Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1.]

Hmmm. Obviously vague, but a(3) seems to fit pretty well to me.

And your comment about this case being dismissed by "any judge with a shred of respect for the law". This is happening in Tennessee! How many judges in that state are going to throw this out?

Your interpretation of the statute is incorrect.

Number 3 requires the creation of "hazardous or physically offensive condition..."

The display of a sign, neither was "hazardous" and it didn't create a "physically offensive condition".  It would have been different if they had placed the toilet in the middle of the road where it could have interfered with traffic, but this was in her front yard.


Even it was hazardous or created a physically offensive condition, number 3 still wouldn't apply as the message had a legitimate purpose, in that it was a protest against actions taken by an agent of the state, and thus protected free speech.

Agree. Also, who gets to decide what is a 'legitimate purpose'?

Any good lawyer, much less the ACLU, is going to bring up the point that unless the police are addressing all "physically offensive conditions by any act that serves no legitimate purpose" in town equally, that this is abuse of power on many levels.
 
2013-03-17 11:41:54 AM  

BigBooper: Taylor Mental: BigBooper: kevinboehm: The thing I don't understand... Why a toilet?

The defendant's daughter was trying to flush a big bag of meth and it plugged up the toilet. To get the drugs, the cops tore up the toilet.

Thus the broken disassembled toilet.

The pic clearly shows the tank and bowl intact. The cops obviously took the time to get the necessary tools to unfasten the four bolts holding the tank to the bowl and the bowl to the floor. They should have just smacked it with the same sledge hammer they always have on hand when executing a search warrant.

We can't see the base of the toilet, and TFA describes it as a "broken toilet". The toilet is obviously not shattered, but we don't know if the cops unscrewed the bolts, or if they just grabbed a handy crowbar. And all my toilets are attached with two bolts, not four. A good kick would easily break out the porcelain around those bolts.

I'm going to say the odds are much higher that the toilet is busted out rather than the cops took the time to be polite and disassemble the toilet.


LOL, you've never removed a toilet, have you?

I don't care what the article says. The picture clearly shows the part of the bowl with the two holes where the tank attaches to be intact. You cannot remove the tank from the bowl without either sawing through or unscrewing the nuts and bolts. Prying will only result in shattering either the tank, the bowl, or both. Toilets are made of vitreous china, which is basically kiln fired clay. It has the molecular consistency of glass.

I don't think the cops were being polite either, I think they were being stupid. And had they somehow managed to carefully break the two bottom bolt mounts securing the bowl to the floor without shattering it (highly unlikely) why would they go to the trouble of unscrewing the bolts attaching the tank to the bowl? Once the lower bolts are off you just pull the entire thing up and off its flange.

And believe me, the only thing you're going to accomplish by kicking a toilet bowl is breaking your foot.
 
2013-03-17 11:46:43 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: BigBooper: 39-17-305. Disorderly conduct.
(a)A person commits an offense who, in a public place and with intent to cause public annoyance or alarm:
(1)Engages in fighting or in violent or threatening behavior;
(2)Refuses to obey an official order to disperse issued to maintain public safety in dangerous proximity to a fire, hazard or other emergency; or
(3)Creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act that serves no legitimate purpose.
(b)A person also violates this section who makes unreasonable noise that prevents others from carrying on lawful activities.
(c)A violation of this section is a Class C misdemeanor.
[Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1.]

Hmmm. Obviously vague, but a(3) seems to fit pretty well to me.

And your comment about this case being dismissed by "any judge with a shred of respect for the law". This is happening in Tennessee! How many judges in that state are going to throw this out?

Why do you think I added the qualifying phrase?

I'd argue all day over the Constitutionality of a(3).  Who the fark decides what's a legitimate purpose?  "Offense" is an emotional reaction in the law's context; what in Hell does "physically offensive" even mean?  That whole sentence is vague, arbitrary, and capricious.

In this case, the act is an act of political expression; the woman is criticizing a government official.  That puts the law under strict scrutiny, and it cannot be applied to this act.  Even if the act isn't political speech, "offensive" speech is is still very well protected by the First Amendment.


I'd argue all day about "physically offensive" since her sign clearly wasn't.
 
2013-03-17 12:05:10 PM  
Oh, Mount Pleasant, TN. In DC's Mount Pleasant neighborhood this would be taken as a art installation and promptly ignored.
 
2013-03-17 02:20:53 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: andychrist420: BarkingUnicorn: So we have a judge who issued a warrant without probable cause and a DA who just makes shiat up about speech having to have "a legitimate purpose."  This is going to be good!

Did you see the charges against her?  Seems like she had been under surveillance for a while.  She was a know drug dealer apparently.  And got caught with meth again in jail. Although breaking in on a warrant might be problematic, unless she was a wanted felon.  And TFA doesn't say, but the town may have obscenity laws.  But it's a $50 dollar fine.  I doubt the ACLU would get involved.

The drug charges are against her daughter, who was also the one caught with meth in jail.  TFA fails to clearly identify which "Powell" it's talking about in different sections.

If the town had an obscenity law that covered what she did, she would have been charged under it.

You don't know the ACLU very well.


It was pretty clear to me which Powell was being talked about in which section.

/reading comprehension
//they used to teach it in schools
 
2013-03-17 02:26:04 PM  

GAT_00: basemetal: Meh, that's going to cost the taxpayers of that town a bit.

I can speak for personal knowledge and say that whatever they make the town pay, it doesn't have it.


There's at least one Police Officer's salary they can use to pay for violating a citizen's rights.
 
2013-03-17 02:41:17 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: BigBooper: BarkingUnicorn: BigBooper: She created a sign, visible to the public, containing the word "F*ck". Can you site one case where the use of that word on a public sign has been found to be protected speech?

How about Cohen v. California?

"Appellant was convicted of violating that part of Cal. Penal Code 415 which prohibits "maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person . . . by . . . offensive conduct," for wearing a jacket bearing the words "fark the Draft" in a corridor of the Los Angeles Courthouse. The Court of Appeal held that "offensive conduct" means "behavior which has a tendency to provoke others to acts of violence or to in turn disturb the peace," and affirmed the conviction. Held: Absent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions, the State may not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, make the simple public display of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense. Pp. 22-26."

You're right. In 1971 arguably the most liberal Supreme court in the history of the nation over turned a conviction of a man who was protesting the Vietnam war.

Let's say this by some miracle makes it all the way up to TODAY's Supreme court. How confident are you that the modern court is going to decide for this defendant? A defendant not protesting an undeclared war, but the arrest of her meth dealing daughter.

I'd wager any amount that you care to name.

There's another difference between the California law and Tennesse's:  the latter is so vague that a defendant is not given fair notice of what is prohibited.  The Cali law explicitly prohibited lewd or vulgar language uttered in the presence of women or children.  Somehow that issue did not come before the Court, though it was noted in a footnote to the decision.


Google arrested for flipping off cop or something similar. You will find a litany of court cases where police officers arrested someone who flicked them off or said fark you to them. You'll also find that the person had the charge thrown out, the judge admonished the DA and policeman, and the person successfully sued the town for false arrest or something similar.

That article has three links for you

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/01/flipping-off-cop-case/
 
2013-03-17 03:50:13 PM  

untaken_name: LordOfThePings: [kmpunksays.files.wordpress.com image 480x480]

I think they were lying. I ate the whole roll and I just feel kinda full.

/burrrrrrrrrrrrp


Don't eat the brown acid
 
2013-03-17 05:03:01 PM  
Free speech oinker. You will never win the popularity contest so get over it.
 
2013-03-17 08:22:53 PM  

redmid17: Google arrested for flipping off cop or something similar. You will find a litany of court cases where police officers arrested someone who flicked them off or said fark you to them. You'll also find that the person had the charge thrown out, the judge admonished the DA and policeman, and the person successfully sued the town for false arrest or something similar.


When I was 17, I flipped off a cop hoping he would beat me down and I could get a big payday from the city. I had a couple of "witnesses" just in case. We must have flipped off about 10 cops that day, before we gave up. The only reaction I even got was one cop who busted out laughing and flipped me off back. I have to admit, that wasn't the result we expected.
 
2013-03-17 08:26:27 PM  

untaken_name: redmid17: Google arrested for flipping off cop or something similar. You will find a litany of court cases where police officers arrested someone who flicked them off or said fark you to them. You'll also find that the person had the charge thrown out, the judge admonished the DA and policeman, and the person successfully sued the town for false arrest or something similar.

When I was 17, I flipped off a cop hoping he would beat me down and I could get a big payday from the city. I had a couple of "witnesses" just in case. We must have flipped off about 10 cops that day, before we gave up. The only reaction I even got was one cop who busted out laughing and flipped me off back. I have to admit, that wasn't the result we expected.


Haha that reaction would have been worth seeing live and in person. "Did he seriously just flip me off back?"
 
2013-03-17 09:11:22 PM  
Free Speech V. Meth
/No winners here
//case is gonna go on and on ...
 
2013-03-17 10:59:18 PM  
Broken toilet on front line - Ok
Insulting a cop with it - YER GOING DOWN!

Tennessee
 
2013-03-18 12:49:21 AM  

redmid17: untaken_name: redmid17: Google arrested for flipping off cop or something similar. You will find a litany of court cases where police officers arrested someone who flicked them off or said fark you to them. You'll also find that the person had the charge thrown out, the judge admonished the DA and policeman, and the person successfully sued the town for false arrest or something similar.

When I was 17, I flipped off a cop hoping he would beat me down and I could get a big payday from the city. I had a couple of "witnesses" just in case. We must have flipped off about 10 cops that day, before we gave up. The only reaction I even got was one cop who busted out laughing and flipped me off back. I have to admit, that wasn't the result we expected.

Haha that reaction would have been worth seeing live and in person. "Did he seriously just flip me off back?"


Yeah, I wish there had been cellular phones with cheap cameras on them back then. I bet the video would have gone viral. I am, however, glad that I tried this in the early 90s and not today.
 
Displayed 22 of 72 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report