snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Non-UL Chat > Police Blotter

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 16 November 2017, 04:15 PM
Psihala's Avatar
Psihala Psihala is offline
 
Join Date: 28 February 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 7,755
Shout Texas sheriff concerned about truck with anti-Trump message

A Houston-area sheriff said Wednesday he's concerned the driver of a truck displaying an expletive filled message against President Trump and those who voted for him is creating a situation that could lead to confrontations with people offended by the sign.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-s...trump-message/
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 16 November 2017, 05:00 PM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 11,967
Default

Freeze peach!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 16 November 2017, 05:52 PM
Alarm's Avatar
Alarm Alarm is offline
 
Join Date: 26 May 2011
Location: Nepean, ON
Posts: 5,407
Default

Quote:
"I don't want to see anything happen to anyone," Nehls said. "With people's ... mindset today, that's the last thing we need, a breach of the peace."
as much as I'd hate for their to be a "breach of the peace", I think it would be interesting to watch how the police would handle it, as long as the truck owner does not provoke it. A lot of ink has flowed about the treatment of black people arrested, versus certain "white" criminals, especially in the recent mass shooting cases. So seeing if the police intervene quickly and forcefully, would be interesting, I think.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 16 November 2017, 07:30 PM
E. Q. Taft's Avatar
E. Q. Taft E. Q. Taft is offline
 
Join Date: 30 July 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 13,869
Default

Were I arguing the case against the truck owner, I would probably state that the part about "NFBSK Trump" is protected speech, but adding "...and NFBSK you for voting for him," crosses the line into a provocation, i.e. "fighting words," and therefore qualifies as disorderly conduct or some such.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 16 November 2017, 07:54 PM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 11,967
Default

Compared to all the "NFVSK you liberals" type bumper stickers that are easy to find in many parts of the country?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 16 November 2017, 08:21 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is online now
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 25,301
Default

Trial law is not comparative in that manner. If E.Q. Taft were prosecuting their cases, he'd probably use the same tactic.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 16 November 2017, 08:34 PM
Darth Credence's Avatar
Darth Credence Darth Credence is offline
 
Join Date: 28 October 2005
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 3,381
Default

Would Snyder v. Phelps apply in this case? (The Phelps clan was doing their thing at the funeral for the son of a gay man, and they picketed with signs including "You're going to Hell" and "God hates you".) SCOTUS ruled 8-1 there that it was protected speech. IANAL, but I don't see much of a difference between the two.

ETA:
Quote:
Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter View Post
Compared to all the "NFVSK you liberals" type bumper stickers that are easy to find in many parts of the country?
Are we specifically protecting Victorian school kids, now?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 16 November 2017, 08:49 PM
E. Q. Taft's Avatar
E. Q. Taft E. Q. Taft is offline
 
Join Date: 30 July 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 13,869
Default

It's one of those things where I think it's protected speech, but I also don't think it's something you ought to do. Not because I'm that worried about annoying Trump voters, but I can understand parents being concerned at their kids seeing it, and some people are still somewhat sensitive to the language. (I also could argue that it doesn't really help matters any, and certainly doesn't contribute to civil discourse. That such a large segment of the other side gave up civil discourse long ago doesn't change that.)

One night I was riding on a bus when there was a gentleman making a cell phone call, speaking VERY LOUDLY, so that you couldn't avoid hearing his side of the conversation throughout the bus. This would be rude and annoying under any circumstances, but he was also lacing his conversation with the n-word about every five seconds. OK, he was black, and some black people use that word in casual conversation (mainly with other black people), and I'm not going to criticize them for that (or make the ridiculous "If they can say it, I should be able to say it!" argument) -- but that loudly, in a public place? (Worse yet, public but confined -- offended people couldn't just move further away.) It made me pretty damn uncomfortable. (There were a few other black people on the bus; I would be curious to know how they felt about it.)

Since that word tops my list of potentially offensive things to say, I probably would not have been quite as uncomfortable if he'd been dropping F-bombs, but I wouldn't have been very happy about it, in those circumstances. I don't think it's an appropriate word to put on a bumper sticker -- but that of course doesn't make it criminal.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 16 November 2017, 09:06 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 8,602
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by E. Q. Taft View Post
It's one of those things where I think it's protected speech, but I also don't think it's something you ought to do. [ . . . ] (I also could argue that it doesn't really help matters any, and certainly doesn't contribute to civil discourse. That such a large segment of the other side gave up civil discourse long ago doesn't change that.)
Agreeing with that. Some things are legal, and ought to be legal, that nevertheless shouldn't be done. This I think is one of them.

However, having said that: shouldn't the sheriff's concern be, not about the driver who's being rude, but about the people in his jurisdiction who he apparently thinks are likely to respond to rudeness with violence?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 17 November 2017, 01:56 AM
Esprise Me's Avatar
Esprise Me Esprise Me is offline
 
Join Date: 02 October 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 6,631
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
Trial law is not comparative in that manner. If E.Q. Taft were prosecuting their cases, he'd probably use the same tactic.
Except it is relevant if the law they're enforcing against this guy is not equally enforced against those who express similar sentiments from the opposite viewpoint.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Credence View Post
Would Snyder v. Phelps apply in this case?
Yes, and also Cohen v. California, in which a "F*ck the draft" t-shirt was held to not constitute fighting words. Actually, there are precious few cases in which something has been found to fall under the fighting words doctrine. Generally an immediate incitement to violence/riot is required, not merely something offensive.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 17 November 2017, 03:33 AM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,202
Default

Sounds like nanny state overreach to me.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 17 November 2017, 08:06 AM
gopher's Avatar
gopher gopher is offline
 
Join Date: 06 January 2005
Location: Sunderland, Northumbria, UK
Posts: 2,137
Default

Sounds like right-wing snowflakes whinging to me.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 17 November 2017, 12:50 PM
Psihala's Avatar
Psihala Psihala is offline
 
Join Date: 28 February 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 7,755
Default Woman with crude anti-Trump truck decal arrested for fraud

The driver of a pickup displaying an expletive-filled message to President Donald Trump and his supporters in the Houston area was arrested Thursday on an outstanding warrant.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/woman-w...ecal-arrested/
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 17 November 2017, 02:03 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 8,602
Default

The story gives next to no information about the fraud warrant, which is kind of frustrating.

What are they claiming was done that was fraudulent? did they already know she was driving a vehicle with that sticker before they issued it? how good is the evidence behind it?

Somebody with a locally-unpopular political opinion certainly might have done something wrong that's entirely unrelated to the opinion. But without any info about the warrant, it's hard to tell whether Fonseca's claim that it's related to the truck decal has any validity.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 17 November 2017, 02:15 PM
Psihala's Avatar
Psihala Psihala is offline
 
Join Date: 28 February 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 7,755
Default

I wondered about that, too. Not much info in the new article that wasn't a rehash of the OP article.

It also made me wonder if the police in Dallas check for wants and warrants during traffic stops. Wouldn't this have come up when she was pulled over for the window sticker recently?

~Psihala
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 17 November 2017, 02:20 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is online now
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 25,301
Default

According to the article, the fraud warrant was issued back in August. The sheriff made the post Wednesday. While she has had the sticker for almost a year, it is hard to believe that the sheriff has been planning this arrest for 3 months (and got a judge to fraudulently issue a warrant as well).

ETA: Was she pulled over? It was my impression that the threat of arrest on disorderly conduct was made via the Facebook post.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 17 November 2017, 02:27 PM
Psihala's Avatar
Psihala Psihala is offline
 
Join Date: 28 February 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 7,755
Default

I may be mis-remembering. I thought she said she'd been pulled over several times for the sticker over the past year. I may have wrongly assumed there has been one since August.

~Psihala
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 20 November 2017, 05:21 PM
Psihala's Avatar
Psihala Psihala is offline
 
Join Date: 28 February 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 7,755
Throw Tomato Woman with crude anti-Trump sticker adds new decal to her truck

A Texas woman who became a viral sensation for displaying a controversial "F*** Trump" sticker on her pickup truck has added a new decal to her collection.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/karen-f...-pickup-truck/
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Trump offers to ‘destroy career’ of Texas state senator at meeting with sheriff TallGeekyGirl Soapbox Derby 0 07 February 2017 05:02 PM
Skywriters have message for Trump at Rose Parade Psihala Soapbox Derby 9 05 January 2016 03:42 PM
Texas City plumber files lawsuit after ISIS was seen using his old truck Psihala Moot Court 27 16 December 2015 09:58 PM
Lululemon takes heat over anti-sunscreen message Alarm Business Bytes 28 09 August 2014 04:55 PM
Glenn Beck to truck supplies to migrants on Texas border E. Q. Taft Soapbox Derby 13 12 July 2014 06:23 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.