Useless SJW gives the finger to the wrong dude.

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: TheRedneck

Both parties behaved badly and the motivation seems to be politically fueled; why do I have to repeat myself?

Now you're the one making assumptions without knowing all of the facts, as you are assuming she is giving a 100% accurate account, that she passed his house several times, but only once flipped him the bird, and with no provocation whatsoever, he followed her (though flipping the bird at a random stranger in their own front garden seems like provocation to me)

The victim states otherwise that this was not a one off, it was a continued stream of harassment, which he eventually decided to do something about, therefore, how is he in the wrong for doing something about it.

As he claims he has cctv footage of the harassment, then all will be made clear soon enough, and I don't think you can continually support her actions if that is the truth.

a reply to: InTheLight

It will be interesting to know the judge's findings on this type of political social unrest...

The judge will not give a judgement on political social unrest. That's not how it works.

The judge will review the evidence submitted by the attorneys, listen to the arguments made by the attorneys, and consider the testimony of any witnesses during the trial. He will then make a decision based on that information as to whether a law was broken and hand down an applicable verdict. The burden of proof is initially on the plaintiff (the man in this case), then if the judge feels there is sufficient evidence to continue, on the defendant (Tara Dublin in this case). If she can prove her innocence, or disprove the allegations against her, there will be no judgement/conviction; if she cannot, the judge will award damages if the case is civil, or will sentence her if it is criminal.

That's all it is: two people looking to the court to right an alleged wrong. This will not have any consequences toward the election, social attitudes, or anything so wide-ranging. Only the Federal or higher State courts do that.

I can understand how recent Supreme Court decisions can give the impression that this is more than it is, but this is not going before the Federal courts. It's one out-of-control, twitter-addicted, insane woman going off the deep end and attacking a man without reason. That's all, despite what Tara or anyone else wants it to be.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: InTheLight

They both are political activists, not social justice warriors, from what I viewed on the video and you can bet these types of altercations and violence will only escalate.

I believe she does fall into the category of SJW.
She was triggered by political signs that he placed in his front yard in support of a candidate.

She could just drive right on by without taking action. She chose to do the wrong thing. She also lied to a cop. That is evident if you watched the entire video that she posted (even though I believe that she cut portions of the original video out).

She was triggered by a political sign, hence political triggering and she also claimed 'freedom of speech'. Where does freedom of speech and harassment draw the line?

If the couple felt threatened they should have contacted the police immediately, at the first interaction with this woman, so as to put a stop to it, or have her interviewed as to her intentions (or irrational behaviour - but who determines this?). Because if it is true they have video footage of her car, then they would have her license plate number from day one.

Just like hundreds of other people at political rallies, the frustration is running high and negative and sometimes violent altercations are happening - now it appears to be on the street where you live.

originally posted by: destination now

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: TheRedneck

Both parties behaved badly and the motivation seems to be politically fueled; why do I have to repeat myself?

Now you're the one making assumptions without knowing all of the facts, as you are assuming she is giving a 100% accurate account, that she passed his house several times, but only once flipped him the bird, and with no provocation whatsoever, he followed her (though flipping the bird at a random stranger in their own front garden seems like provocation to me)

The victim states otherwise that this was not a one off, it was a continued stream of harassment, which he eventually decided to do something about, therefore, how is he in the wrong for doing something about it.

As he claims he has cctv footage of the harassment, then all will be made clear soon enough, and I don't think you can continually support her actions if that is the truth.

Did she not previously stop and take pictures of the political signs? Is this not a fact? If it is then, I have no other train of thought to believe that this type of behaviour has something to do with politics.

I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: InTheLight

It will be interesting to know the judge's findings on this type of political social unrest...

The judge will not give a judgement on political social unrest. That's not how it works.

The judge will review the evidence submitted by the attorneys, listen to the arguments made by the attorneys, and consider the testimony of any witnesses during the trial. He will then make a decision based on that information as to whether a law was broken and hand down an applicable verdict. The burden of proof is initially on the plaintiff (the man in this case), then if the judge feels there is sufficient evidence to continue, on the defendant (Tara Dublin in this case). If she can prove her innocence, or disprove the allegations against her, there will be no judgement/conviction; if she cannot, the judge will award damages if the case is civil, or will sentence her if it is criminal.

That's all it is: two people looking to the court to right an alleged wrong. This will not have any consequences toward the election, social attitudes, or anything so wide-ranging. Only the Federal or higher State courts do that.

I can understand how recent Supreme Court decisions can give the impression that this is more than it is, but this is not going before the Federal courts. It's one out-of-control, twitter-addicted, insane woman going off the deep end and attacking a man without reason. That's all, despite what Tara or anyone else wants it to be.

TheRedneck

It will most likely result in the judge telling both parties they behaved badly and start acting like adults.

a reply to: InTheLight

Both parties behaved badly and the motivation seems to be politically fueled; why do I have to repeat myself?

Because your statement ignores the facts discovered this thread in favor of politically-motivated reasoning contrary to those facts.

The initial response by Tara does appear politically-motivated, since her statements during the stop and afterward on Twitter and other outlets reference the election. The man has made no such statements that we have seen. Signs in his yard are not considered political extremism in our society; they are considered simple statements of overall support, little different than a bumper sticker supporting a football team.

Instigating a confrontation or threatening someone, especially on their own property, is considered an act of hostile aggression. One is permitted to protect themselves when confronted with such. This can include violence if necessary, but legal methods are far preferred and include accumulation of evidence of the crime.

Again, this has little to do with the election; it has everything to do with legal and illegal, or moral and amoral, actions.

TheRedneck

a reply to: InTheLight

Well exactly, she's taking pictures of a stranger's garden because she doesn't like his political affiliations, she admits she doesn't even know the man, yet she has decided he is a racist, redneck who deserves abuse in his own home. He may not even be aware that it was his political slogans that were causing her reactions..she'd never spoken to him, so why would he, it is all on her, she decided to harass the man and his girlfriend because they want to vote for Trump, and although he's probably aware now what was behind her actions, he's probably been thinking, who the heck is this crazy woman, what have I done to her, then ultimately got to the end of his tether and decided to follow her whilst contacting the police.

So no, not really to do with politics per se, more that she took issue with his signs and decided to berate him for it in a cowardly and nasty manner, without giving him any opportunity to speak for himself.

a reply to: destination now

I will need to read the court case transcript to know the real facts. Everything else in this thread is conjecture at this point.

a reply to: InTheLight

It will most likely result in the judge telling both parties they behaved badly and start acting like adults.

That is another politically-motivated statement that ignores facts.

Please re-read my statements to you, and try to understand that our laws and court system are obviously quite different than yours.

TheRedneck

summation of this story.....a lefty got pissed at a righty, and the righty got pissed at a lefty.....hence, 59 pages of, of, what?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: InTheLight

Both parties behaved badly and the motivation seems to be politically fueled; why do I have to repeat myself?

Because your statement ignores the facts discovered this thread in favor of politically-motivated reasoning contrary to those facts.

The initial response by Tara does appear politically-motivated, since her statements during the stop and afterward on Twitter and other outlets reference the election. The man has made no such statements that we have seen. Signs in his yard are not considered political extremism in our society; they are considered simple statements of overall support, little different than a bumper sticker supporting a football team.

Instigating a confrontation or threatening someone, especially on their own property, is considered an act of hostile aggression. One is permitted to protect themselves when confronted with such. This can include violence if necessary, but legal methods are far preferred and include accumulation of evidence of the crime.

Again, this has little to do with the election; it has everything to do with legal and illegal, or moral and amoral, actions.

TheRedneck

The judge will determine what the real facts are, and without bias.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: InTheLight

It will most likely result in the judge telling both parties they behaved badly and start acting like adults.

That is another politically-motivated statement that ignores facts.

Please re-read my statements to you, and try to understand that our laws and court system are obviously quite different than yours.

TheRedneck

If she claims freedom of speech, then I cannot see this being a cut and dried case. Where is the line drawn between freedom of speech and harassment?

originally posted by: jimmyx
summation of this story.....a lefty got pissed at a righty, and the righty got pissed at a lefty.....hence, 59 pages of, of, what?

...of what? Pissy pages.

a reply to: InTheLight

Exactly, and so is your conjecture that the man behaved badly as well as Tara, yet she is the only one who has admitted making a crude gesture to a stranger in his front garden, simply because he has a sign that she doesn't like

originally posted by: destination now
a reply to: InTheLight

Exactly, and so is your conjecture that the man behaved badly as well as Tara, yet she is the only one who has admitted making a crude gesture to a stranger in his front garden, simply because he has a sign that she doesn't like

As I stated previously, I will have to read the court case transcript to actually know the facts.

a reply to: InTheLight

sticking the finger up at a total stranger who is minding his own business in his own home is harassment pure and simple...nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Had she got out of her car and said, I think you are an idiot for wanting to vote for Trump, that is freedom of speech, because he could have either ignored her or continued the conversation by saying, well I think you are an idiot for wanting to vote for Clinton..

Driving by sticking the finger up at someone you don't know and who has no idea why you are being aggressive to them, is not freedom of speech, it is a childish, cowardly action and she deserves to be taken to task for it.

originally posted by: destination now
a reply to: InTheLight

sticking the finger up at a total stranger who is minding his own business in his own home is harassment pure and simple...nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Had she got out of her car and said, I think you are an idiot for wanting to vote for Trump, that is freedom of speech, because he could have either ignored her or continued the conversation by saying, well I think you are an idiot for wanting to vote for Clinton..

Driving by sticking the finger up at someone you don't know and who has no idea why you are being aggressive to them, is not freedom of speech, it is a childish, cowardly action and she deserves to be taken to task for it.

It is considered a form of free speech and is protected under the first amendment, according to this article.

legalmatch.typepad.com...

I cannot speak to her or his choice of behaviour to each of their triggers, there may be other issues there, which may come to light in court.

The more she talks the dumber she gets.

2 dimensional thinking as well.

a reply to: InTheLight

If she claims freedom of speech, then I cannot see this being a cut and dried case. Where is the line drawn between freedom of speech and harassment?

Harassment is when one instigates violence against another. Stopping at someone's home and making generalized demeaning statements towards them in responce to a political sign is way, way over the line between free speech and harassment.

Tara is free to express support for her candidate all she wants. As a political candidate, Trump cannot stifle her freedom to speak out against him. As a celebrity, even if by her own propensity of speech, Tara herself has placed herself in the same category. Her victim has not placed himself in celebrity status, nor is he a political figure; therefore he is protected against unreasonable taunts.

In simpler terms, freedom of speech is limited by the right to be secure in one's own home. The more publicly available one becomes, in terms of political activism or celebrity status, the less restrictive that restriction on freedom of speech becomes.

TheRedneck

a reply to: InTheLight

fair enough, but considering the guy claims to have footage of a number of events, it will surely be proved to be harassment.

Looking forward to seeing that video, which as Tara herself cut out bits of her own video of the conversation with the police officer, I don't doubt, exists.