Luckily we just kicked out the party that always believes it's right, er, left, uh, never mind...
What does Memphis do about this?
- Thread starter bbsam
- Start date
OutOfTheKnow
Active Member
You're absolutely right. A court could rule differently.
OutOfTheKnow
Active Member
Often times, yes, but the People saw the whole scene on this one and there's no lack of precedent for unique cases in which Public Opinion can make a a standing judgement.
OutOfTheKnow
Active Member
So there's only one party that thinks it's always... "right"? Last I checked, they all have the same agenda. The only difference between the two parties is which groups of people they pander to come election season.
This is not a unique case. Flag burning didn't turn up last week therefore public opinion is in stark contradiction to what the Supreme Court has decided.
OutOfTheKnow
Active Member
SCOTUS set a precedent though, that a political statement in the form of an offensive, physical demonstration is protected, and the FedEx guy made an equal and opposite statement, and his statement prevailed because it was stronger.
rod
Retired 22 years
This has nothing to do with flag burning or civil rights being stepped on. The FedEx driver saw an illegal act (no open burning in that city--It's a law on their books) and stepped in to stop the crime. Case closed. If that city didn't have a "no open burning" law on the books this would be a horse of a different color. That in a nutshell is what will be brought up IF (and I doubt it will) it comes to trial. Any good lawyer could get this case dismissed. Once again --Thanks FedEx for standing behind your driver.
A theft and assault do not constitute an "opposite statement". We aren't even talking "alternative facts" here.
rod
Retired 22 years
Think what you want but if there is a stink raised over this incedent that is what FedEx's lawyers will argue.
OutOfTheKnow
Active Member
My case may or may not fall apart in court, but speaking strictly legal here, Rod's case seems pretty airtight lol. 1. You can prove the flag burning was illegal in that city. 2. You cannot prove what the driver's justification was beyond what he says. He could've seen the flag burning and been infuriated by it, then realized there is an open burn ban and acted on the justification with the motive being irrelevant in this instance.
Was an attempt at humor, get over your serious self.
OutOfTheKnow
Active Member
Oh, it was amusing, but making your statement humorous doesn't mean you didn't mean what you inferred, unless, of course, you're telling me you made no implications of what your true opinions are, through the vehicle of humor?
No, a thug would've clubbed them with that fire extinguisher. You do realize some of us pointed out the destruction caused by protesters at the inauguration and some others here glossed it over as no big deal? Let's face it, a significant percentage of this country hates this country for various reasons, and seems to want to hurt it in any way possible unless they get their way on everything. Not getting their way results in destruction. And twisting truth to fit their agenda seems perfectly acceptable to them.
Everyone who frequents this forum regularly knows what my true opinions are. The thing about humor is if you have to diagram it for some to get it it's no long humorous, if ever it was.Oh, it was amusing, but making your statement humorous doesn't mean you didn't mean what you inferred, unless, of course, you're telling me you made no implications of what your true opinions are, through the vehicle of humor?
You cannot prove the flag burning was illegal in that city because it isn't. You can prove that burning without a permit is illegal but it is obvious that no attempt was made to find out if they had that permit. In fact, it can be proven that he made no such inquiry. Therefore that he is even cognizant of what the law actually is is highly questionable.
Maybe he's a volunteer fireman and was doing his duty?
A volunteer fireman would know the ordinance and the permits required.
