Unn Effing Believable...

[A Horse With No Name]

So tonight, I'm surfing the web, talking to my boss on the phone, and getting ready to start reading an article about Planes in a woodworking magazine.

Get a call from my 17year old son...he is about to be charged with a federal crime...

Seems he and a friend took a BB gun into a field, next to our subdivision, with his friend...they had the permission of the owner of the field to use it.

Someone called and complained, and the boys had photographs of a few prominent political figures they were going to be using as targets...both Republicans and Democrats, lest any of the C and G people get sand in their vagina over this one.

So apparently it is as much of a federal crime to shoot a photograph of a person with a BB gun as to shoot the actual person with a 30-06 rifle. The local cops actually wanted to call in the feds for this!

One would think this would be protected under freedom of speech. Only thing that saved him was that he was a minor. 18 and they were going to press charges and he was going to go to jail for sure. Cops wanted to keep the BB gun as evidence in a federal crime...I talked them into giving it back so I could give it to my twelve year old...who is much smarter than my 17 year old.

What an utter joke...and I asked if urinating on a photograph would be considered the same as shooting it. Was told that yes, urinating on the photograph of a federal official is now a federal crime, and not protected under freedom of speech. Amazing!

[A Horse With No Name]

Part #2...

So last night...my Chevy work truck had a blow out as I was driving home from work. I left my good shop style floor jack at the shop, where I was going to do some brake work on another of our company trucks. Called AAA...

Took AAA an hour and a half to change a tire...two of the Chinese made jacks they use malfunctioned...they sent out an actual tow truck just to lift the rear of my Astro Cargo van (with not a lot of stuff in it...)...and even then it took them over an hour.

Un effing believable....I'm not mad...I just find the level of the stupidity from last night and tonight amazing.

[balthazar]

Part 2 sucks, but part 1: there are no words.

F'ing ridiculous- these are public employees- the idea that they are some sort of royalty, and are above commentary when they ALREADY have near zero accountability, blows my mind. I'ts increasingly feeling like the Common Man can barely breathe without a permit ("Is that a greenhouse gas you're exhaling, sir? Carbon offset credit paperwork, please.") Hope to hell this is completely dismissed against your son.

And those who passed a federal law banning the destruction of a photograph of a public employee need to be fined & fired for gross negligence of common sense.

[regfootball]

well, it is sort of absurd. However. As much as anyone disagrees with political figures, there is what I believe to be a disturbing lack of respect in using someone's, anyones picture as a target.

There are differences and disagreements, and I understand the free speech angle, but IMO there is an element of crossing the line here. I wouldn't take a picture of anyone's mother, any politician, even Saddam Hussein and use it as target practice.

So the discussion of whether its a crime is probably valid. There is a totalitarian element there that maybe needs to be questioned. Federal crime? eh.........The outlet of violence and involving the simulation of another human here is to me though, sort of disturbing.

Discontent is not supposed to channel itself into an endorsement of that sort of element IMO. JMO.

Example, I am not fond of someone like Pelosi, just as much as many are not fond of Sarah Palin. But I don't think its right to become rabidly contentious towards them and to ever envision harm to them or anyone. No one human has the right to elevate themselves to a position of judgment over others. We're all specks of useless dirt. We have little right to judge.

Ignoring that basic level of respect for public officials in my opinion is a major thumb in the nose of the order of our social structure. To encourage reactions to the people in those positions IMO is attempting to undermine the stability of our system. Until someone can prove to me there is a better system, we need to respect it. Actions like that to me are somewhat blatant disrespect.

I think it would make more sense if someone is disgruntled with a politician, to write a position paper or argument as to why they are useless. That is more in the spirit of the founders of our constitution.

Our elected officials are a direct reflection of the intellect of the voters. Garbage in, garbage out. If people are upset with who's in office, look in the mirror. That's who put them there. Bush, BarryO, Nixon, Carter, etc.

It might be valid to say then that perhaps Ms. Pain should not have been using target sights on all those things she was doing....

Edited January 29, 2011 by regfootball

[balthazar]

>>"I wouldn't take a picture of anyone's mother, any politician, even Saddam Hussein and use it as target practice."<<

You would not, and that is your choice.

Of what harm is it for 2 individuals to (responsibly: away from others, with permission, in a safe manner) choose to do so?

We cannot legislate away everything that makes someone uncomfortable. And that's really all that's behind this here.

[regfootball]

it's the element of pretend violence. it undermines the glue of keeping our lawful state in order. and disrepect of the position and structure of our elected officials. it's immaterial who the people are, its the institution and chain of command and law you are disrespecting.

to me, shooting at a picture of someone is pretty darn close to saying you really just want to do it. Just admit that you do. You want to harm that person because you are upset with them.

to me, wanting to inflict violence on anyone that way, symbolic, or actual, is not justified.......with rare exception. Whoever took out Saddam was doing us all a great favor, although it still wasn't right for them to do it.

it's also why I think shoot em up video games are stupid. At the same time, it cultivates a killer instinct in our culture's warriors, which are needed to carry out orders without falling out of line.

Edited January 29, 2011 by regfootball

[balthazar]

There is a very real difference between 'pretend' and 'actual'.

Will actors portraying assassinations be arrested for 'pretend' crimes?

Are rap stars going to be prosecuted for using the 'N-word' as a racial hate crime?

Are all video games that portray 'violence' (God- how many turtles has Mario bonked into oblivion?) going to be seized?

Thought crime is the very next rung on the ladder.

What country is this again??

[Intrepidation]

Part one I find to be pretty ridiculous. Its a piece of paper. I'm amazed Top Gear didn't get arrested for shooting photos of The Stig with real guns.

[Drew Dowdell]

Reg, how long before your squeamishness of shooting someone's picture with a BB gun spills over into squeamishness of digitally shooting a "likeness" in a video game?

[regfootball]

don't confuse the issue. I don't think it should classify as a federal crime. at the same time, I just don't think one can absolve themselves by just saying 'oh, it's a game, or oh, it's pretend'.

Basically what I am saying, if you are printing pics of politicians to use as target practice.....I think there are issues underlying that would be better addressed through intellectual debate and such. Taking someone's picture and shooting at it with a BB gun IMO is no different than having a bad time with yourself looking at hot pics of say your neighbors hot wife or something. You envision yourself in the moment doing the action, but then cop out of the action by saying 'oh it's pretend so it doesn't hurt anyone' and deny that there are no bad effects in some way or creep into your interaction with them in some other way.

I guess it gets ya by. I am not sure it's federal crime material. Its more the denial that there are not bad consequences of doing it even if its pretend. If there is dissatisfaction involved with elected officials, and its an undercurrent to everything, there is a more productive way of dealing with that undercurrent. And one more beneficial to society. At that point its useless to debate the semantics of law, it has more to do with an individual attempting to undermine social order in a bad way for self impulse.

Edited January 29, 2011 by regfootball

[regfootball]

There is a very real difference between 'pretend' and 'actual'.

Will actors portraying assassinations be arrested for 'pretend' crimes?

Are rap stars going to be prosecuted for using the 'N-word' as a racial hate crime?

Are all video games that portray 'violence' (God- how many turtles has Mario bonked into oblivion?) going to be seized?

Thought crime is the very next rung on the ladder.

What country is this again??

explain to me the reason of taking a picture of a particular person as opposed to another. There are those that would choose to print pictures of bush and those that would print pictures of BarryO. And what I am saying is its completely ridiculous to not assign some thinly veiled malice in that if someone takes the effort to do it.

I am not in the know if you are married or have kids or parents or whatever. But if I printed a picture of you or your loved ones and used it as target practice I find it hard to believe you wouldn't find something to get upset about in some way. Even if i handed you a beer while doing it and said, 'hey buddy I am shooting at your wife its just pretend'.

Perhaps if its just on the Wii or paintball or something. OK, I can see a little bit of difference.

Edited January 29, 2011 by regfootball

[balthazar]

What about tearing a picture of a politician in half (dismemberment), or tossing it into the ol' wood stove (burning to death)? Are these also 'thinly veiled' examples of 'malice' requiring federal officer intervention? Can we even recycle pictures of politicians (drown & shred the remains)? It's flat nuts.

If I knew you and you were shooting a picture of my wife, I would question you, yes. Because in your example, you are both in close proximity to me and you know me. If you lived states away and did not know me personally (and somehow I learned you were doing that), I wouldn't assume you were a potential killer, no.

[Camino LS6]

Damn Stang, that's just insane!

Federal crime?

I don't think that passes the smell test, and is certainly not constitutional.

More BS from the powers that be.

[daves87rs]

While I don't reallly agree with the idea of the target (just plain bad taste), that is just retarded to be a federal crime. Maybe a fine, a talking to, but that be pretty much it.

In my area, the cops may have just joined in on the fun....

And everyone wonders why our kids are so like minded sometimes.....

[the_yellow_dart]

The charges would really piss me off. Hell, they would piss me off if they happened here in Canada. It's even more ridiculous that it's happening in a place that calls itself "The land of the free".

[loki]

first

using a profile target should be a crime then too...? aim for the head/heart... duh. that profile target could be ANYONE.

sarcasm... self defense training, right?

channel some V for vendetta...the gov should be afraid of their citizens.

2nd, yeah, that just sucks and sounds like a big waste of time (over the ~30 mins max it could take)

[Justin Bimmer]

what ever happened to shooting tin cans or actual targets with grades on them. I remember in Dirty Harry, they used to shoot photos of people in Magnum Force when they were having their shooting championship. Harry shot a bystander and somebody yelps "he shot a good guy" or something like that.

[regfootball]

What about tearing a picture of a politician in half (dismemberment), or tossing it into the ol' wood stove (burning to death)? Are these also 'thinly veiled' examples of 'malice' requiring federal officer intervention? Can we even recycle pictures of politicians (drown & shred the remains)? It's flat nuts.

If I knew you and you were shooting a picture of my wife, I would question you, yes. Because in your example, you are both in close proximity to me and you know me. If you lived states away and did not know me personally (and somehow I learned you were doing that), I wouldn't assume you were a potential killer, no.

the disrespect I am showing for the person in the printed picture is still the same, regardless of whether i know them personally or not and regardless of whether I am close to them or not.

at firing ranges they just have the vanilla silhouette of adult figures, no face. For target practice, if you can't take out your angst any other productive way, sure, go ahead and shoot at that.

[regfootball]

While I don't reallly agree with the idea of the target (just plain bad taste), that is just retarded to be a federal crime. Maybe a fine, a talking to, but that be pretty much it.

[regfootball]

Reg, how long before your squeamishness of shooting someone's picture with a BB gun spills over into squeamishness of digitally shooting a "likeness" in a video game?

I don't play video games anyways. Sort of unproductive.

[SAmadei]

what ever happened to shooting tin cans

Wait a second? You have a beef (pun intended) with the food supply infrastructure? You terrorist, are you planning on poisoning us or destroying our ability to package food? ;-)

Actually, I think tin is too expensive to waste nowadays.

Anyway, this is also not passing my smell test. I think we have some confused cops trying to scare/intimidate kids.

I don't think we'll see the politicians elevate their images to protected status until at least the next decade.

[Camino LS6]

I tend to agree, I think those cops were completely full of crap.

[FAPTurbo]

I think it'd be tasteless to shoot an official's picture, especially in light of recent events in Arizona. But regardless of taste, that should not be a crime at all, as it's freedom of expression.

[Croc]

He should have just shot at maps of their districts.

[daves87rs]

66, I hope everything turns out okay!

[thedriver]

Ask the officials exactly what law was broken. Chapter and verse. Often when someone claims these kind of things, they assume you are stupid and cannot look this up. I have had landlords like that. Find me the actual law and I will ask my wife who is an attorney what her professional opinion is.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

>>"I wouldn't take a picture of anyone's mother, any politician, even Saddam Hussein and use it as target practice."<<

You would not, and that is your choice.

Of what harm is it for 2 individuals to (responsibly: away from others, with permission, in a safe manner) choose to do so?

We cannot legislate away everything that makes someone uncomfortable. And that's really all that's behind this here.

Agreed...

It's a matter of common sense and fear mongering. The common sense seems to not exist in our society at this point and the fear mongering has replaced it.

Common sense in this situation says; 'this is just what kids do.' (When I was younger, I shot up many Saddam targets with my BB gun; no harm, no foul)

Fear mongering in this situation says; 'these boys are emotionally unbalanced and will someday shoot an elected official because as a society, we're scared of everyone now; even ourselves. (9/11 worked very well, it has permanently altered our society in a very negative way)

It's sad, really. I suspect it'll get a lot worse too.

I also think there is a more simplistic element here... The cops seem to be taking themselves too seriously as well. I mean, really? You're a cop that's paid to catch REAL criminals, yet you're out making a big bull&#036;h&#33; story/charges against kids playing in a field?!?

Edited January 30, 2011 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

it's the element of pretend violence. it undermines the glue of keeping our lawful state in order. and disrepect of the position and structure of our elected officials. it's immaterial who the people are, its the institution and chain of command and law you are disrespecting.

That sounds... Almost communist.

to me, shooting at a picture of someone is pretty darn close to saying you really just want to do it. Just admit that you do. You want to harm that person because you are upset with them.

Maybe that's the point of shooting the picture, it's substitutes for the person and averts a dangerous situation. (Although I doubt this is the case here)

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

I will say this; though.

IF there is such a law, I can see that law completely backfiring and more people shooting at politicians. I really don't think many americans will take lightly to 'protected images' and communism.

Just sayin'...

[regfootball]

That sounds... Almost communist.

Maybe that's the point of shooting the picture, it's substitutes for the person and averts a dangerous situation. (Although I doubt this is the case here)

but that's exactly the point. your two responses. I understand what you are saying. But I just am thinking sometimes there are more deeply rooted and fundamental issues.

killing and sex have parallels again here. It's not acceptable to have sex with the other woman, but it's ok to rub one out while thinking about them. No 'crime' was committed, but its not right to assume there is still nothing there emotionally or in sunsequent interaction that can contribute to harm or that is doing something wrong to you, the subject matter or any of the other important people in their life, or yours. Fantasy is not always 'no strings attached'. Every emotion has a consequence eventually, regardless of whether it is always acted upon in the moment or not. Not acting on the emotion does not always hide the end result.

As far as the Communist thing, I know what you are getting at because of the free speech and all of that. I agree this should not be a crime as it was charged. But there should be an internal clock that says this maybe isn't right. I am only suggesting that the undertones that exist in people pretending, but wanting to shoot at someone because of their position in government etc. is in a way a selfish desire to undermine the democratic structure, and a disbelief and distrust of the way our country is set up and our democratic system. Again, like I said above, garbage in, garbage out. Look in the mirror and see who you voted for. Now you think you have the right to take democracy into your own hands or take the emotion to that level just because YOU, one person, are unhappy?

Instead of taking target practice at someone symbolically to deal with your hate of someone or their position or political agenda, it would be far more productive to assault them in other ways, I might suggest debate on issues. Use the internet. Rally the people. Influence the political process by getting involved, etc. Build consensus among constituents to resolve things through the legislative process. I say all of this through the framework of a functional democracy, a democracy of which the respect of positions, structure, and elected officials needs to exist and trust needs to exist in the institution and the process or the whole thing comes unglued. Not one where the citizens themselves are of a mindset where they have no desire to participate with respecting the terms of agreement as well.

Egypt what's going on there is slightly different. THey really haven't been a democracy. No wonder they are revolting.

What i was saying was not in the standpoint of promoting communism. It was more about needing to preserve the level of respect for the democratic system so the system itself doesn't come unglued.

Think of the military. If that sort of undercurrent of disrespect and channeling individual emotions unproductively were allowed to fester and grow.

Edited January 30, 2011 by regfootball

[loki]

and here's where language(experience) can skew what we are thinking about...china is communistic, but it's called a people's republic, isn't that code for "democratic" or not?

another question, should we still respect people that use their power to make our lives worse?

[Camino LS6]

The problem, Reg, is that respect needs to flow in both directions. When those in government cease to respect the citizens, they themselves release the beast that eats them.

And that is exactly like Egypt.

No government of any type exists without the permission of the populace.

[regfootball]

The problem, Reg, is that respect needs to flow in both directions. When those in government cease to respect the citizens, they themselves release the beast that eats them.

And that is exactly like Egypt.

No government of any type exists without the permission of the populace.

oh, absolutely you are right there, I would say that exact thing myself. what you mean there is exactly what i think every day. Our elected officials are not working in the public interest. Agendas bought and paid for are being forced down us in exchanged for increasing reductions of freedom and standard of living.

Oh I know what you are saying. I am just not sure that means we give license to breed the wishing of planned harm to another individual. Even 'symbolically'.

But as history has proven endlessly, violence etc. has tended to effect change in bigger events than any sort of civilized and cerebral approach at improving social structure.

what he have right now in America is a bad marriage. There are major problems. And no communication, and no recognition that any side of any argument need to sacrifice for common good. No one senses that a common bond is strong enough to stay through the hard times of the disagreements. Our fiber of commitment in this country is indeed on life support and no one is talking about it. Worst part is we are so vulnerable to being taken over by outside interests who can totally jump on us when we are divided and weak.