Vaccination or Prison This is getting scary!

a reply to: Atsbhct

I think it's worth stating that this isn't new. It isn't right, but it's definitely not new. Inmates are given vaccines for different illnesses and often, they can't really say no.

That's not the same thing though. What you're referencing is people who get vaccinated BECAUSE they are going to Prison.

If the Prisons actually do force all inmates to get the Covid vaccine then this guy truly doesn't have a choice.

That would mean his options are to either get the shot, or go to Prison and get the shot.

a reply to: BrokenCircles

True, but offenders on probation are often forced to take medications. Especially anti-psychotics, anti-depressents, methadone, etc.

So a judge forcing medical treatments isn't new. I should have expanded on that better.

If this goes through thats scary and wrong...

Because right now based on my reading of the article this hasn't actually happpened yet, the judge has said what i think is some pretty stupid stuff. I done some further reading and found This< br />

Rutherford's attorney, Carl Lewis, did not challenge Wagner's order. Lewis said he expects Wagner won't take any action if Rutherford doesn't get vaccinated.

Wagner could extend Rutherford's probation term or even send him to prison. If that happens, Lewis said, "that opens to door for lawyers to litigate the issue."

So it sounds like the judge has ordered him to do it as part of his 60 day probation and they're gonna play chicken with the judge. If the judge does try to extend his probation or punish him for not getting the vaccine then lawyers are going to come down on this like a ton of bricks.

So yeah if he does actually get punished for this then its wrong, i also think it's wrong of the judge to try to impose this but it looks like the guy isn't going to get vaxed and the judge won't do a thing about it. Time will tell.

sad what many liberals have become, back in the 80's and 90's they were all about freedom and defying authority but now that they have gained control they became worse than those they called tyrants once upon a time, not even noticing how authoritarian they've become in the name of progress.

a reply to: Atsbhct

and i bet it is usually for mentally ill people not a regular sane person. and if they have then a lawsuit has been long coming, often times the law is broken for years by the state because no one ever challenges things in court or brings their case to the supreme court when they do.

A judge can set any provisions for probation he wants, as long as what he's asking isn't against the law. The reason, because you simply can stay in jail and not accept the probation rules and instead, do the time for the crime. Simple as that.

Maybe you should consider the consequences of committing a crime, so you won't have to face this decision. Yup!

originally posted by: BrokenCircles
a reply to: AaarghZombies

A judge simply doesn't have the power to order an adult to be vaxxed against their will.

I think the discrepancy is that the Judge isn't ordering or forcing this guy to do anything, but rather he is giving the guy a choice, probably as part of his plea bargain. I'm not saying it's right, but that might be what makes it legal.

Strong arming is not a choice.

a reply to: MiddleInsite

not really a Republican but whatever, i wasn't even talking about any of that and i could care less about any of that nonsense. im talking about how apathetic many Americans are in general, not protesting or challenging anything that any other democratic nation would've addressed long ago.
Americans have become pushovers and make excuses about it, corruption has poisoned both parties and we keep letting them exploit us by dividing us with a fake show of ideologies the politicians dont even believe in, they are all friends who only care about keeping the status quo so they can keep living well.

you made a perfect example of what i mean, im trying to talk about people not being vigilant and allowing our rights to be trampled, and doing nothing to challenge it, but here you are bringing up trump and making it political to shut me up by invalidating my words by labeling me something many people hate.
both parties do this when they take power, use the political ideology division they fabricated to invalidate any opposition to their plans and ambition, and their followers play right into it like the puppets they have become, you are either "one of us" or the enemy, truly a dictatorship of two parties.

originally posted by: namehere
a reply to: Atsbhct

and i bet it is usually for mentally ill people not a regular sane person. and if they have then a lawsuit has been long coming, often times the law is broken for years by the state because no one ever challenges things in court or brings their case to the supreme court when they do.

Are all drug addicts/users mentally ill? Because methadone usage is regularly a part of probation for opiate users.

It's a weird issue. Like someone else said, you can always go to jail... where you'll also be subjected to vaccines/treatments, etc.

And I'm not saying this is right. I think it's wrong on almost all counts. My thoughts on the process are too far out there for ATS, but it isn't unprecedented. And in this case, I think he'll likely win.

a reply to: Atsbhct

im all about legalizing all drugs and regulating them to prevent extreme addiction and all that, just like im all about not forcing a vaccine on people, if someone is vaccinated its no threat to them if someone else chooses to risk it and not get vaccinated, covid is going nowhere even with the vaccine and boosters.

a reply to: yuppa

Strong arming is not a choice.

Jail time versus probation is often a choice. It's nothing new. If you disagree with the proposed terms of the probation, you can choose to do the time instead.

Probation is not meant to be enjoyable or easy. It usually has some bullshyt rules that come along with it. It is merely an alternative option that can keep people out of jail.

It should be the Lawyers job to try to get the Court to agree to different terms.

originally posted by: Bigburgh
a reply to: JAGStorm

This is on ATS somewhere.
www.fox26houston.com...

Divorce Court Judge orders COVID-19 vaccine for Liberty Co. man to see his children

LIBERTY COUNTY, Texas - A Liberty County man says his rights were violated when a divorce court judge ordered him to get a COVID-19 vaccine in order to see his kids.

The court-ordered COVID-19 vaccine was listed as a requirement by the judge in order for Chris Staley to have visitation with his kids, according to Trinity County court records. 

It's happened to someone who didn't commit a crime. I'm not sure how much authority a judge has in this situation.

HERE?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: JAGStorm

I'll reserve opinion until I see it play out. Dude may have a plan.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Bigburgh
a reply to: JAGStorm

This is on ATS somewhere.
www.fox26houston.com...

Divorce Court Judge orders COVID-19 vaccine for Liberty Co. man to see his children

LIBERTY COUNTY, Texas - A Liberty County man says his rights were violated when a divorce court judge ordered him to get a COVID-19 vaccine in order to see his kids.

The court-ordered COVID-19 vaccine was listed as a requirement by the judge in order for Chris Staley to have visitation with his kids, according to Trinity County court records. 

It's happened to someone who didn't commit a crime. I'm not sure how much authority a judge has in this situation.

HERE?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

That's the one
And I can't S&F anymore than I already have😊👍🏼

a reply to: JAGStorm

Well, he's going to jail either way. Vaccination as a condition of parole isn't exactly the same thing. Don't like it, don't deal fentanyl.

a reply to: BrokenCircles

the parole agreement on paper should reflect it then. it was not written down before the deal was made.

a reply to: yuppa

“This defendant was in possession of fentanyl, which is deadlier than the vaccine and COVID-19,” the statement reads. “The defendant expressed no objection during the proceedings and stated no medical concerns and his attorney did not object. We will have to see what happens now that the defendant is expressing opposition.”

www.yahoo.com...

a reply to: Bigburgh thank you for posting this, I was scratching my noggin knowing I had read another case somewhere where a judge had ordered something similar

MC

a reply to: infolurker

Well, the quote you are referencing is from their guidebook. Just for the record, I prefer the term Totalitarianism.