Kathleen in VA
-
Posts
6,213 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by Kathleen in VA
-
-
Coffee grinders are dirt cheap. If you end up not liking it you can use it to grind spices or herbs.
:iagree:I use mine to grind flax seed which I add to my homemade bread. I only paid $10 for a little one I got at Walmart.
-
The pics are too tiny for me to see the words on the sign. I'm guessing from the other responses that the house sold. Congratulations!
-
Just saw an ad on craigslist for a "Chiuaua doxen." That's a dog. Good thing they had a picture or I might not have been able to figure it out.
You brought back memories of this post:
http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39584&highlight=doxon
I can overlook a craigslist post that has misspellings (although, I admit, it is difficult:D), but the Associated Press? Well, I'm afraid that's demanding too much.
-
Thank you, thank you, thank you!:)
-
I seem to recall a website that summed up popular movie plots (or was it books?) in just a few sentences. I'm pretty sure they were humorous as well. The sentences may have rhymed, too. Anyone know what I'm talking about?
-
I voted other, because, although I do not own one, I would like to. Just can't afford it.
-
Thanks!:)
-
Hint: Turn the photo to the right. :lol::lol:
To quote Bugs Bunny, " What maroons."
Oh, man, that made me have to think!
-
I frantically correct before someone notices and can quote me.
Me, too.:D
-
Thanks, Pauline. Your user name certainly is apt.:)
-
I have come across this term in a document I am proofreading and I've never heard it before. Can someone enlighten me?
Living Classrooms of the National Capital Region operates shipboard program for students in Washington and suburban Maryland using two historic Chesapeake Bay buy boats.
-
Keep in mind that this event did not occur in a vacuum. There is a
motive behind the alleged actions, which helps provide justification for the charge. In effect, this father was threatening witnesses, and contrary to what someone alleged above, arrests are made when this happens to private citizens as well. Google "arrests for threatening witnesses" and you will find a lot of news articles.
Proving a random person or a neighbor made a threat towards you without additional proof is not impossible, but it is close. In a situation like this, it all becomes a bit easier to prove because of where it occurred and the circumstances underlying the threat.
I can see how this would make a huge impact. Thanks for your patient answers to my posts.
-
It pretty much does. You obviously need to go back and read the links that I posted. Two drug dealers shot *bystanders* and nobody was arrested. My husband's best friend was murdered by the father of the hoodlum-next-door to his mom after a confrontation about the hoodlum vandalizing his elderly mom's house and nothing happened to the killer. This latest case is hardly the only case. I'm actually amazed that one of these cases is *finally* receiving national attention.
I just read the CNN article you linked.:svengo:
-
Overstepping their bounds would have been tackling the guy to the ground after he said what he did and "shot" his finger at them. Reporting it to an authority and letting him decide if a warrant should be issued is not overstepping their bounds, it is acting within the bounds of the law.
I guess with so little information to go on I should just let it lie for now. Still, it unnerves me a bit. I'll have to mull it over some more. You are right, of course, Jean, that they did not actually overstep their bounds. Perhaps the magistrate did - it's hard to tell with so few details. I guess the author of the article did his job well, lol - he got me riled up.:D
-
Or look at Florida's Stand Your Ground law. You can actually shoot someone and get away with it.
Isn't that a bit of an oversimplification? Hopefully, the Justice Dept. will, well, mete out justice in the case of Trayvon Martin. I've not actually read the law, but I seriously doubt it gives freedom to kill anyone for any reason and get away with it.
-
The difference is often the amount of evidence. Threats over heard by a 3rd party also carry more weight than those reported only by the threatened party.
Also, keep in mind that state statutes can vary greatly, and not every jurisdiction may have a felony intimidation charge.
I hadn't thought of that - the 3rd party thing. That does add credibility, doesn't it?
Yes, I hadn't thought of the differing laws in different states. Perhaps this law was enacted precisely to have grounds on which to make an arrest before anything happens to prevent policeman from being gunned down. In a way, I can see how a magistrate might want to err on the side of caution, and hey, if it sends a strong message to the community that, even what may be idle threats will not be tolerated in the least way, that doesn't hurt either. Again, it would be really helpful to know exactly what the guy said that was taken as a threat. And, being there and actually hearing his tone of voice and seeing his facial expressions and being able to take all that into consideration would be helpful as well. The article sure does make me feel like I have to walk on eggshells whenever I'm near a deputy and I'm an upstanding law-abiding citizen! I was taught that policemen are there to protect me - I don't want to feel afraid of them.
-
Should the police just wait until they are gunned down to take a threat seriously?
Sgt. Mark Renniger, Officer Tina Griswold, Officer Ronald Owen, and Office Greg Richards were all gunned down while preparing for their shift in a local coffee shop on November 29, 2009. They weren't even on the job yet. The shooter told his family gathered around the Thanksgiving dinner table that he was going to kill some cops.
Office Timothy Brenton was gunned down while sitting in his parked patrol car on October 31, 2009 discussing a traffic stop with another officer.
Officers Kent Mundell and Nick Hausner were ambushed while responding to a domestic disturbance call on December 21, 2009.
All of these officers were attacked by surprise. They weren't threatened directly prior to being gunned down. Should police not take threats seriously when they are targeted for no other reason than the fact they wear the uniform to work?
Well, in this particular case it sure would be helpful to know exactly what the comment was, wouldn't it? If he had said, "I'm going to kill some cops" that would definitely put a whole new light on the situation. If he had said, "I'm going to get back at you" I would not necessarily consider that a death threat. I'm not thinking so much about this particular guy and this particular situation so much as I am thinking about how this affects the general population - the freedom to make a harmless gesture (and, yes, the actual gesture harmed no one), or make an angry comment even if the anger is unfounded. How will my behavior be evaluated - how will anyone's behavior be evaluated?
The finger gun gesture is often used just to vent anger and rarely does anyone mean they are truly going to follow it up by getting a real gun and committing murder. It is not a threat - only an angry response to a frustrating situation.
Please don't misunderstand me - I am infuriated every time I hear of a policeman being gunned down. I'm trying to think through how this affects our lives as individuals. To be charged with felony assault by intimidation after pointing a finger gun just seems over the top to me. Perhaps if I were married to a police officer or knew one personally, I'd feel differently.
I am just concerned that those with the power to arrest people for crimes are in a position to overstep their bounds and have been known to do so from time to time. I don't want to live in a country where I have to watch every little thing I do - things I think are perfectly harmless and do with no intent to cause harm - simply because they may be misconstrued by those who have the power to arrest me and charge me with crimes I never committed. I find that intimidating.
-
I think anyone who threatens a police officer (in any way shape or form) should expect to spend some time cooling his heels in jail. Regardless of whether you personally have found the police helpful, or believe a particular officer worthy of respect. And he DID absolutely verbally threaten them in addition to the silly finger thing the media has decided to focus our attention on.
I think being too stupid to know when to shut your mouth should be at least a misdemeanor also. :tongue_smilie: Oh wait, that's called contempt of court if you're in a courtroom.
Yes, I would have to agree with your first statement - the guy should be made to sit in a jail cell and consider that even a pretend threat is not acceptable. Maybe there is no misdemeanor statute that addresses this kind of behavior. I just think felony assault by intimidation is a bit excessive. Did the deputies really feel intimidated by a finger gun?
Perhaps this is irrelevant, but this makes me think of lots of articles (and tv police shows) I've encountered in the last 20 years or so where someone is receiving credible threats from another person (I think of the battered wife who leaves her husband only to be stalked and hunted down by him or some other such scenario) and the victim goes to the police asking for help only to be told they can't do anything at all unless the guy actually "does" something (whatever that is). Often, the person gets a flimsy restraining order that is not enforceable and ends up dead. I guess I'm just thinking why is it so hard for the average citizen to have someone arrested for making out and out threats to one's life, but all anyone has to do to a policeman is point a finger gun and they get arrested for felony assault. Seems off balance to me.
-
You just made up a completely different version of events than what was reported. It is alleged someone overheard the threat - there is nothing mentioned about "mouthing words". There is also nothing that says the threat was made in the courtroom.
Again, where are you coming up with the "muttering under his breath" and mouthed words"?
From the article:
Bledsoe said that during Tuesday’s hearing, deputies saw the elder Loveless silently mouthing words and shaking his head in response to testimony.
and
Bledsoe said 58-year-old David Thomas Loveless was overheard making a comment about getting back at the detectives and made a gun gesture toward them as they got into their vehicles.
I seem to have combined the threat with the mouthed words in the courtroom. Apparently, another comment was made in conjunction with the finger gun pointing.
-
You just made up a completely different version of events than what was reported. It is alleged someone overheard the threat - there is nothing mentioned about "mouthing words". There is also nothing that says the threat was made in the courtroom.
Again, where are you coming up with the "muttering under his breath" and mouthed words"?
Sorry - I was going by what a pp said - didn't take the time to go back and read the article. Mea culpa. I will do that now.
-
:iagree:
:iagree:
And on a side note: OP, I grew up in Stafford, so Fredericksburg was a regular old haunting of mine. :001_smile: I really miss that coffee shop downtown....what is the name of it? It's been so long, I've forgotten...
Do you mean the Java Connection? I don't get downtown much, but I have shopped at the JC. They went out of business, sadly.
-
This -
Bledsoe said that during Tuesday’s hearing, deputies saw the elder Loveless silently mouthing words and shaking his head in response to testimony.
is why it's a big deal. He made the gestures and words in direct response to two officers testifying against his son in court. That's intimidation. He was also charged with obstruction of justice. It's not about the "finger gun", it's about the intent to get back at the officers for putting his son behind bars.
I understand this to a certain extent. The finger gun is being connected to a threat - it is not isolated. I also have very little sympathy for the dad or his son - the dad seems to be the kind of father who would stick up for his son no matter what the kid did and blame his child's bad behavior on others (including, perhaps, every teacher from K through 12th grade) and not taking any responsibility for his son's behavior at all. I don't like either one of them.
However, I am thinking that a deputy saw him "mouthing words" in response to testimony is a far cry from jumping up from his seat and saying, "I'm going to kill you!" He had an emotional reaction to the testimony that caused him to shake his head and mouth some words ( meaning they weren't actually spoken out loud and, with that in mind, is it possible the words were misinterpreted?). I can imagine any number of parents having a similar response - different words being mouthed perhaps - but still shaking the head and being upset by the testimony.
It is quite possible that he seriously meant harm to the deputies when he pointed his finger gun - he could seriously have meant "I want to kill you." But I don't see how you could prove that in a court of law. That's what I'm trying to say.
The words or "threat" were made in the courtroom - the gesture was made as the deputies were getting in their car. That signifies to me that the two actions were made at least a few minutes apart and, more likely, several minutes if not more.
How does a magistrate construe that as intimidation?
I really do understand that he could have said under his breath, "I will kill that guy someday" or some other such thing and I understand that by pointing a finger gun he may have meant, "I plan to shoot you dead someday," but how does one prove that was the intent of either behavior or both behaviors combined. Could they not easily have just been emotional responses from a dad who is upset about his son going to jail?
Maybe the problem is I don't really understand the law that allows someone to be arrested for intimidation or what constitutes intimidation. I would never have thought pointing a finger gun or muttering something under one's breath could be construed so. For me, a felony accusation would have to be made after more of a threat than "mouthed words" or a "gun" made with one's fingers.
-
FIL is a policeman in NH and somebody he knew at the police department got shot yesterday.
I have no sympathy for people who threaten a policeman's life
I'm sorry that happened but I don't see how that bears on this situation, frankly. I don't have patience with anyone threatening to kill a policeman either, but I don't automatically think that pointing a finger gun is a threat to kill. It is unkind, uncalled for, rude and immature - but I do not necessarily think it means "I want to kill you and I plan on doing it someday."
-
Where does the article say the gun motion occurred well after the statement? The way I read the article it seems they likely occurred at the same time.
Let's say a private citizen testified against a neighborhood hoodlum. While walking back to their car, a friend of the defendant's makes the dame comment and motion. Should that be taken seriously?
I don't think it's clear one way or the other.
Annoying Amazon book reviews. *glare*
in General Education Discussion Board
Posted
OK, I'm only mildly annoyed, but this is happening way too often and it makes me grumbly. (Btw, I know that is not actually a word.) I don't like going to Amazon to check the reviews of a book and find that many of them are not reviewing the book at all - they are reviewing Amazon's customer service. I don't want to know that your book arrived in a timely manner (most of my packages from Amazon have) or that it arrived with a crease in the cover due to poor packaging - that could happen to any book Amazon sells. I want to know what you thought about the content of the book!!!
OK, I feel a little better now.:D