Sheriff's warning to 'F--- TRUMP' truck owner draws outrage on Facebook

a reply to: Liquesence

Wrong again.

Sheriff defends arrest of woman with 'F_k Trump' sticker

In the post, he said Fonseca could face disorderly conduct charges, but the Fort Bend County prosecutor later said he had no plans to prosecute her.

No plans to prosecute because they already got her on a Felony Warrant for using some else's identity without permission. LOL

But, did you see that could have also gotten her on disorderly conduct!!?? Did you see that!!??? Or do I have to reread the thread to you!!!???

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: projectvxn
I really don't think it matter what it says.

Okay. As I note in other threads concerning law and interpreting and understanding the verbiage of statutes and legal findings, I'll default to my experience working directly with lawyers and judges and having to do what I just noted as a day job for much of my adult life.

It is therefore not reasonable to say that the words written and displayed fall outside the scope of protected speech if the person who wrote those words or displays those words is not engaging in criminal activity.

Yeah, you didn't read the law, did you? Either that, or you just don't understand the scope of it.

I'm not saying that to be disrespectful, I mean it literally, not with demeaning intent.

But regardless, police and sheriffs don't determine guilt, they just cite people for what they believe are legal infractions. If the judge throws out a ticket based on the law that I cited, that's up to the judge. But this can be debated all day between people who have spent time in court rooms as their day jobs and those who most likely have not, and it'll generally get us nowhere. I've said my piece on it...you can disregard it or see it as possible, that's up to you.

Like I said in my initial comment on this thread, both the truck owner and those calling the sheriff over it are all snowflakes, IMO.

Substitute "Screw" for said four-letter expletive.

“SCREW TRUMP AND SCREW YOU FOR VOTING FOR HIM.”

Is it now disorderly, or did the meaning somehow change?

I seem to recall a whole lot of anti-Obama and anti-Bush bumper stickers, including four-letter expletives.

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: justme2
a reply to: RazorV66


LOL...

Totally triggered. You can't hide it. It's obvious! (Sticks wet finger in your ear).

And the sticker is hilarious, even more-so that it triggered law-enforcement. I bet they would have been just fine w/ it if it had been against anyone but Ronald Rump (that's his name right, RIGHT?). lol.

And before you (or anyone) gives the "ohhhh a liberal" response, I'm far from one.

Think outside the box for once.

Whatever you need to get you through the day.
I call them as I see them....only a complete douchebag displays their stupidity in that fashion.
I would bet you if I walked by that idiots house with a Confederate flag, she would piss her panties about it.
If I lived near there, that is exactly what I would do.

Yeah um gonna have to sa1y that saying that you would do such a thing is the most 'triggered' thing I've seen in awhile.

a reply to: Greven

And I would agree with you that those were inappropriate too. Civility matters. Spend less time raging against the unchangeable (like thinking Trump will be impeached) and more making a difference in your own community.

originally posted by: roadgravel

Nehls wrote on Facebook that a county prosecutor had agreed to accept disorderly conduct charges — an opinion that District Attorney John Healey disputes, as does the ACLU of Texas.

State law describes disorderly conduct as intentionally using "abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of peace." The law also prohibits making "an offensive gesture or display in a public place" that could have the same effect.

Getting Trump followers "riled up" into a fit might work as a breach.

Trump followers are easily riled up, and that's their problem, not ours.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: Greven

And I would agree with you that those were inappropriate too. Civility matters. Spend less time raging against the unchangeable (like thinking Trump will be impeached) and more making a difference in your own community.

You don't know anything about me or what I think or what I do - stop acting like you do.

This post is what I mean about 'easily riled up.' It's completely nuts.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: roadgravel

Nehls wrote on Facebook that a county prosecutor had agreed to accept disorderly conduct charges — an opinion that District Attorney John Healey disputes, as does the ACLU of Texas.

State law describes disorderly conduct as intentionally using "abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of peace." The law also prohibits making "an offensive gesture or display in a public place" that could have the same effect.

Getting Trump followers "riled up" into a fit might work as a breach.

Trump followers are easily riled up, and that's their problem, not ours.

Apparently Hillary supporters are off the hook violent, so yes it's your problem. Civility Matters!



But your reply is off topic by deflecting/insulting to Trump supporters. Stay on topic about the crazy lady who just couldn't accept the election and went to jail.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

You did read where the district attorney disagreed with you and the prosecutor who told the sheriff they would accept a charge of disorderly conduct, right?

That was earlier in the story in the OP... it said this:

Healey, a Republican not seeking re-election next year, said he wished the sheriff's office had contacted him earlier about the incendiary issue. He said he did not receive a call until around the same time the comments were posted. In disagreeing with his own prosecutor, Healey noted that his office lacked any information about how the public was reacting to the truck.

"I did not believe it was a prosecutable case based on the definition of disorderly conduct," Healey said.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: roadgravel

Nehls wrote on Facebook that a county prosecutor had agreed to accept disorderly conduct charges — an opinion that District Attorney John Healey disputes, as does the ACLU of Texas.

State law describes disorderly conduct as intentionally using "abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of peace." The law also prohibits making "an offensive gesture or display in a public place" that could have the same effect.

Getting Trump followers "riled up" into a fit might work as a breach.

Trump followers are easily riled up, and that's their problem, not ours.

Apparently Hillary supporters are off the hook violent, so yes it's your problem. Civility Matters!

But your reply is off topic by deflecting/insulting to Trump supporters. Stay on topic about the crazy lady who just couldn't accept the election and went to jail.

That's their problem too.

I'm not a Hillary or Trump supporter and never have been. Go fishing elsewhere. They can both rot in jail for all I care, if they're guilty of crimes.

a reply to: Greven

Glad to hear that. I fish in a river not online.

What if you voted for Trump and think the Sheriff is engaging in political persecution?

a reply to: projectvxn

The sheriff didn't even charge her with disorderly conduct, which the decency ordinances allow for, so what persecution are you referring to? I think they handled it quite well. You do realize they arrested her for the outstanding felony warrant on impersonating someone without their permission, don't you...not the Trump sticker!!??

a reply to: thepixelpusher

No he just threatened her with a disorderly conduct charge than even the DA said wasn't prosecutable.

The sheriff seems to have lied about having worked out DC charges with the prosecutor. That apparently didn't happen. He is nobody to do this to a citizen.

The felony charges she happened to have had nothing to do with the conduct of the sheriff.

a reply to: projectvxn

No but the felony charges had everything to do with her being arrested. What dolt does this crazy Trump sticker crap to call attention to themselves when they have an outstanding felony warrant. I.Q. = Non existent.

a reply to: thepixelpusher

No doubt she's dumber than a box of rocks.

I just don't think the sticker, by itself, is a reason for the sheriff to threaten a private citizen on social media and lie about the charges and what the DA actually said.

The DA himself corrected the sheriff publicly.

a reply to: projectvxn

I agree the sticker would be a waste of resources since it's covered under free speech and would be an over reach of law other than falling under decency ordinances. But, really it should be a non issue. This whole event is a mob bully event sparked by Facebook. Facebook who incidentally says they support anti bullying, but let this go on. LOL

originally posted by: Liquesence
Yes, it is protected, for reasons already given and cited per Cohen.

We are at an impasse on this, so I'm going to let this part of the discussion rest, as you are unwilling to see it my way, and I've looked for your interpretation of the ruling and found it to specifically say the opposite.

Legally, the display in question is not fighting words, if you look at Chaplinsky, for it to constitute "fighting words" in the legal definition. You're arguing that anyone who takes offense or gets triggered can say "those are fighting words" as a legal justification, when Chaplinsky makes it clear what fighting words are and are not.

1. No, I am not arguing that someone taking offense and getting "triggered" (I hate that word) is what constitutes 'fighting words.' In fact, I've specifically said why I think that they are fighting words, and it has nothing to do with other's feelings.

2. Chaplinsky doesn't absolve the truck sticker from being "fighting words" either. I mean, it does specifically mention "utterances," because the whole Chaplinski issue was what he said to the officer, not what was on his handouts that got everyone all angry, but...well, here's how it's defined in Chaplinsky so we can all see it:

[Words that,] by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

So, looking at that definition, it would be easy to argue that "F**k Trump and f**k you for voting for him" fall under this definition.

But, in the interest of fairness and further research, I did a little deeper looking into the legal definition of "fighting words" and found this page that gives it a good overview. What I found interesting is that, while neighter Cohen (1941) nor Chaplinsky (1947) discuss "fighting words" as they pertain to this particular case in this thread (even if you continually say that they do), from the Cornell Law link, it noted the Texas v. Johnson (1989) SCOTUS ruling that redefined (and supercedes/adds to prior defintions of) "fighting words":

In Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), the Supreme Court redefined the scope of the fighting words doctrine to mean words that are "a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs."

While Texas v. Johnson was centered around the legality of flag burning, the redefinition of "fighting words" by a ruling that is 40+ years more recent than Cohen and Chaplinsky tends to support my claim that, by definition, having a display on your vehicle that says "f**k you for voting for [Trump]" certainly falls within the definition of a direct personal insult (and, I would argue, placed on the vehicle for the purpose to provoke people possibly into "fisticuffs").

They aren't fighting words because of the manner in which they are expressed.

It's protected free expression/speech.

Again...yes they are, and no it's not. And if, by now, you are not convinced, then I might as well be quoting case law to a wall. I'm not at all meaning that as fighting words, I'm just saying that it's pointless because it feels like you're refusing to listen based on the grounds that you feel the truck owner should be allowed to display such a thing. But, that's not how it works--feelings are irrelevant in this discussion, otherwise I would reiterate that I feel like anyone who felt a need to call the sheriff's office over this sticker is a...special...individual.

And I still think that, even though everything that I've read tells me that the Law--including SCOTUS rulings--are on the side of the state statute being valid.

At the very least, the officers certainly have grounds for citing the owner, even if they are too ignorant to know that. Like I said, whether or not the court is willing to pursue charges over it is irrelevant to its illegality.

originally posted by: Greven
Substitute "Screw" for said four-letter expletive.

“SCREW TRUMP AND SCREW YOU FOR VOTING FOR HIM.”

Is it now disorderly, or did the meaning somehow change?

I seem to recall a whole lot of anti-Obama and anti-Bush bumper stickers, including four-letter expletives.

See my comment above this reply...it's not the F-word that causes this to fall under state statute. I would, however, argue that it does reduce the intensity of the direct insult, but it still could fall under the law and definition of "fighting words."

"Disorderly" doesn't only mean that the language is profane. Similarly, "fighting words" also do not necessitate profanity.

But playing the what-if game is pointless--the decal says what it says. And like I've already noted, if it just said "F**k Trump," that I don't think that the law would apply at all. It's the insult to Trump voters that follows those words that makes it cross that line.

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: SlapMonkey

You did read where the district attorney disagreed with you and the prosecutor who told the sheriff they would accept a charge of disorderly conduct, right?

Yep, I sure did.

I'm not saying that I'm an expert by any means, but suffice it to say that, when I worked directly alongside attorneys, especially prosecutors, I proved them wrong on more than one occasion about the applicability of a law to an action, or found a law that applied when one that they though would, didn't. My point being, not all attorneys are willing to prosecute every case, and sometimes they make assumptions that are wrong in the end.

But I can't speak for the motivations of these prosecutors, other than, if I was in their position, I probably wouldn't put the time and money into prosecuting the case, either, as the return on investment wouldn't be worth it for the taxpayers--plus, it's such a ridiculous crime in the first place.

little update... since her arrest she's added another sticker

Woman with crude anti-Trump sticker adds new decal to her truck

a reply to: Liquesence

But you could get one made that says "F Sheriff Troy E. Nehls" and put it on your own vehicle.

Then, over the weekend, Fonseca struck back in her own way, adding another decal to her white GMC Sierra: “F*CK TROY NEHLS AND F*CK YOU FOR VOTING FOR HIM.”

Awesome, and prophetic.

I love the First Amendment.

Link