I find this sick and dont like where it is heading (ohio woman/idiot sign), page 8

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:02 PM

link

While I'm not a fan of the precedent and think the ruling should be considered out of bounds, I still can't sympathise with the woman.

In the immortal words of Bill Engval "Here's your sign!"

Cypress

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:10 PM

link

Originally posted by Char-Lee

Originally posted by lobotomizemecapin
forcing someone to do community service is a way of giving back to the community and the tax payers and is not public humiliation.

forcing someone to stand around in public wearing a sign that says idiot is blatantly meant to be humiliating

what dont ya'll get about that?

I am surprised "Ya'll""don't" see that cleaning public restrooms and picking up garbage and such is humiliating also, besides being work, which prisoners are not allowed to be forced to work, especially in your own town where everyone knows you.

You didn't answer my question by Phage did so guess it is not against the constitution.

Well she's not a prisoner. It is community service, she is not incarcerated. Secondly, serving in a janitorial role would not be considered being humiliated; however, wearing the sign serves no purpose but to humiliate.

Whether it's constitutional or not, it still gives an air of extremism from the judge, which is where my concern would be.

Xterrain

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:10 PM

link

Good. Make a dumbass decision, get made to tell everyone you're a dumbass. People need to stop being such p*ssies and man/woman up and accept responsibility for their actions and welcome the consequences of those actions. If you disagree with me, F*CK YOU! I'm tired of liberal pansies being allowed to make policy for the rest of us who like to use our brains before, during, and after a decision.

The woman DROVE ON THE SIDEWALK TO PASS A SCHOOL BUS! Are you F**King kidding me!? You think her punishment was "humiliating"? Ha, what if she killed your kids as they stepped off the bus? Holding a sign to inform everyone of her idiocy would be the least of her concerns if she killed someone.

I'd go one better and suspend her drivers license forever. It's a privilege, not a right.

My_Reality

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:18 PM

link

How wonderfully idiotic. For the government. God forbid a person exercises some personal discretion. Yet another victimless crime blown into epic proportion. Did a child get physically hurt? Did the woman hit any private property? I don't know about the woman's case here. But, people have to get to work. I've passed school buses quite a few times so I would not be late and possibly fired because of some foolish boss coupled with bus drivers that seem to leave that retractable stop sign out far longer than needed(IE. All the children on the bus!!). I've never hit a kid. I have not had a traffic citation in a decade. It is a simple effort indeed to observe when all the little kiddies have crossed the street. It is a simple effort indeed to look in all directions and see that the only possible way a driver could hit a child is if the child phased into existence from a different plane of reality.

My god, when I was a kid I didn't put any trust into the school bus stop signs. I always did(and still do) ensure that a street is completely safe to traverse before I cross it. If it was me I would be laughing it up too. Nonsensical bureaucracy dictating a woman's valuable time for hurting absolutely no one! Oh, that's right. Peoples feelings got hurt. What a monumental tragedy.

But it's for the children you will say. That meme is played out it makes me want to vomit. Children are nothing more than young human beings who have no influence in how we as a society function, yet. They are not our immediate future. Young adults are the immediate future. But I digress.

But it's for the children!!!!!!!

Now it is time to prepare for the onslaught of vitriol because I support personal discretion. My goodness!!! What heresy!!!

obnoxiouschick

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:36 PM

link

Originally posted by lobotomizemecapin
You have not made any point that refutes the point I am making. You are offering a perspective that works for your arguement
there was no real point being made so I ignored it

Originally posted by Obnoxiouschick
Do you think she thinks she's an idiot?
She probably thinks she's smart as hell that's why she was laughing.
Thinking she got caught once but got away with it many more times.
Seriously she's probably very narcissistic and truly doesn't think of herself as an "idiot"
It would be embarrassing/ humiliating if it was true. She doesn't think she's an idiot so the level of humiliation drops a few notches.

I post my quote since you posted a quote that wasn't mine.
Well since you just didn't like my argument then I just give up .....NOT.

Judges can go outside the "Federal Sentencing Guidelines" en.wikipedia.org...

But even if you grant that public humiliation is effective, there’s the question of whether or not it’s constitutional. The 8th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from imposing “cruel and unusual punishment.” However, as with many other important terms in the Constitution (such as “due process of law,” “unreasonable search and seizure,” and “free exercise of religion”), the text of the Constitution doesn’t bother to define the term. This was probably deliberate, as it gives courts leeway to adapt constitutional principles to evolving societal standards.
lawblog.legalmatch.com...
Then if you go back to the four principles I posted earlier - "A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."
Public opinion is shifting toward public humiliation as being acceptable.

This is about a case where the defendant was convicted of stealing mail and sentenced to wear a sign in front of the post office.

The Ninth Circuit upheld the punishment imposed by the district court stating that the sentence “reasonably related to the legitimate statutory objective of rehabilitation.”62 In justifying its decision, the court further reasoned that “the district court outlined a sensible logic underlying its conclusion”63 and included “reintegrative provisions.”64 The Ninth Circuit also determined that the probation condition failed to infringe on Gementera’s Eighth Amendment rights. The court noted that Gementera “offered no evidence whatsoever . . . that shaming sanctions violate contemporary standards of decency.”65
www.law2.byu.edu...

And this will make you smile....
My hubby asked what I was typing so I told him ....he agrees with you. He thinks there shouldn't be any form of public humiliation as punishment since it is backsliding. He thinks this does go against the 8th amendment.

caladonea

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link

reply to post by lobotomizemecapin

This Judge gave a very creative and (to the point) punishment; the woman in question could have ended up hurting a lot of people; I hope she has learned her lesson.

I am thinking she is most likely a good person; who has used poor judgement. I hope she learns to think things through (and what the consequences could be) before she does them.

ldyserenity

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link

reply to post by lobotomizemecapin

The punishment hardly fits the crime she should have had to stand out there in just shorts and a tank top...she could have killed a kid and you think that she isn't deserving of this and more? I pray you don't have kids if you do, I pray some intervention soon!

HomerinNC

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link

by just her attitude alone, she hasnt learned, and wont learn until she accidently hits and kills someone

SplitInfinity

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link

reply to post by lobotomizemecapin

She was an IDIOT! GOOD! I am GLAD the Judge made her hold that sign! Imagine if a KID was KILLED. I bet she will not drive over a sidewalk again! Split Infinity

ldyserenity

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link

reply to post by lobotomizemecapin

Really that is priceless...I don't care about her rights, if she hit me or my child and this would be the least of her worries because I would punish her with DEATH!
edit on 13-11-2012 by ldyserenity because: clarify

truthseeker1984

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link

reply to post by lobotomizemecapin

forcing someone to do community service is a way of giving back to the community and the tax payers and is not public humiliation.

forcing someone to stand around in public wearing a sign that says idiot is blatantly meant to be humiliating

what dont ya'll get about that?

She CHOSE to hold the sign as opposed to paying higher fines and longer license suspension. Once again, the 8th is not violated in this case, and you're the only one that thinks that it was. What if it was a bus with one of your kids (if you have any) on it? This is not someone being locked in the stockade and being pelted by rotting fruit. This is a woman holding a sign for 2 hours total. There's a huge difference.

-TS

vonclod

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link

bravo to the judge..she is a self centered idiot..drive on the sidewalk around a school bus..she obviosly doesnt give a sh^t about anyone other than herself..take her licence i bet she still drives

Cypress

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link

Originally posted by My_Reality
How wonderfully idiotic. For the government. God forbid a person exercises some personal discretion. Yet another victimless crime blown into epic proportion. Did a child get physically hurt? Did the woman hit any private property?

Video

Just because a child was not hit does not diminish the act.
The rest of the post is not even worth addressing.

Praetorius

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link

reply to post by lobotomizemecapin

I feel your OP has been more than adequately responded to already.

This is not an intrusion on rights, nor a cruel and unusual punishment, this was an effort by the judge to make the punishment fit the (repeated) crime, as well as the defendant's apparently ongoing non-repentant and mocking attitude.

Plenty of such actual offenses against the rights of the accused DO exist, but this most certainly is not one of them. This is a light punishment in light of what likely COULD have been extended under existing statutes.

zonetripper2065

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link

Thats our law at work. Might as well set up the stocks and get the tomatoes ready

MonkeyFishFrog

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link

Originally posted by lobotomizemecapin

Originally posted by TDawgRex

Originally posted by lobotomizemecapin

When did I say anything about that law (besides the 8th amendment)? This whole thread is about the violation of the 8th amendment

Please tell me again and again and again how her 8th amendment rights were violated?

SHE choose the sentence.

Your interpretation is just to loose.

Using your own interpretation no one would go to jail, or be sentenced to community service or fined...because that would possibly embarrass them.

Her rights were not violated in any means, way or form.

I'm starting to think that this thread is actually about something else.

How is that the same.

The judge put this woman on the streets and in front of millions of people wearing an idiot sign.

the two are obviously not the same

how many counts of reckless endangerment, reckless driving, and driving through a bus stop did this woman rack up. she should be charged in accordance with the law not by the whim of a judge that obviously has an agenda and is using stuff like this to get public opinion to work away at our rights

The judge did not force her in front of millions. That was whoever posted it on Youtube and reported on it. You are more at fault for this than the judge.

As for the sign itself... it doesn't actually specify that she was the idiot. It says "Only an idiot would drive on the sidewalk to avoid a school bus". It doesn't say I'm the idiot driving on the sidewalk or anything of that sort. People who don't know the woman or the situation might assume she is doing some protest for the safety of the school bus/children and that it wasn't specifically about her.

amraks

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link

she is silly enough to risk the public, well she can be silly enough to stand in public and be humiliated.

I think she should of been made to this for longer. I find people defending this lady pretty offensive, makes me believe you think its ok to drive on a foot path.

Not funny, Not right.

the lady got less than she deserved for her immaturity .

mwood

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link

Exactly WHERE does she get her rights violated by this judgement?!!?

You now have the "right" to not be embarrassed? REALLY??? Is that a "right" now?!?!?

Show me where it says:

Article xxx section xxx Citizens of the united states have the right to be not embarrassed.

Where in the Constitution does it state that?

If it is your right not to be publicly embarrassed then maybe you should be more careful when you post on ATS.

And like taking her license away would stop her stupidity...... Like it does for drunk drivers.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with her punishment.

This country has turned into a bunch of thin skinned, whiny, soft headed idiots.

Like it would have been better to fine her a couple thousand dollars, throw her in jail for 6 months and take her license?

SpacebumZaphod

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link

I totally agree with the judge's decision on this. That woman had no respect for the law, or concern for the children on the bus, or in the daycare center she sidewalk surfed past. Plus, she showed no remorse and thought the whole proceedings were amusing. Added to the fact it was a multiple offense. I don't think the punishment was nearly enough. Maybe if we held criminals accountable for their crimes, and not coddle them. Maybe evoking some good old fashioned corporal punishment, idiots like this would think twice before putting children at risk.

Hijinx

posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 02:53 AM
link

reply to post by lobotomizemecapin

I might agree with you, if society was as we all wish or falsely believe it is.

There's an old saying, the punishment must fit the crime. Although this saying originated in a time long ago, I think we can apply the same method to our society. We live in a world where the way we think we look to others is more important than the lives of any living thing. Television shows, movies, magazines and newspapers teach us how we look and how the public views us is the most valuable thing.

We live in a world where violence and the misfortune of others is humorous, so I understand your reaction towards this. When we seem to be laughing at this woman's mistake. How ever, this woman laughs at the fact she put her, as well as the lives of innocent civilians in danger. She thinks it's funny that she got caught, in fact a whole heck of a lot of society seems to wear their crimes as a badge of honor and pride these days.

So I ask you, how should this woman be punished? The current criminal system is flawed beyond all belief. People no longer live in fear of rotting in a cell, or wearing their criminal records the rest of their lives. I in no means think we should degrade back to the days of gladiator fights, stockades and torture. How ever I do think crime and punishment should be less private than it's become. We have offenders protected from their shame.

I may not agree she should have held a sign proclaiming she's an idiot, how ever I think forcing her to spend an hour stating her actions could be quite the deterrent for so less serious offenses. Perhaps she should have worn a sign saying " I have no respect for the safety of others, I drove my vehicle on the side walk putting the lives of children at risk." Leaving the application of the derogatory language up to the public.

I admit, it sounds harsh, and it's really hard to justify punishing individuals in such ways. How ever, how do you give a punishment or deterrent to these types of individuals. It would be unjust to kill them, it would be unjust to lock them up for life. They need opportunities to learn from their mistakes, but the lesson needs to be implied.

How do you get things through to a society that cares nothing of the value of life?