Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2013 18:47:38 GMT -5
Actually, Helen it's a logical path. If you don't follow the logic there is nothing that can or will ever be said or done that will change your mind.
The logic is environmaniacs close off nature from every angle from everyone but the elite.
Whether it be the ESA stopping animal breeders from reproducing a rare species (it does, I assure you), to making huge tracts of land inaccessible, to fencing of areas of the ocean, to making various activities illegal in "parks, sanctuaries and preserves" to increasing the size of said areas. To... insert here, whatever else you propose is there to "protect" the planet.
In a generation or two few if any will have experienced the beauty of nature. They will have no desire to protect it. I offer no solutions and feel no responsibility to provide them. I see my position is to illustrate the path, nothing more.
I am a big picture guy. I see the path we have followed for the last 40 years and from there it seems simple to extrapolate forward. Helen, if you cannot see this path/logic, you are a lost cause and are not part of my audience. In fact your fighting for this path makes you a short term friend and long term enemy to nature.
TODAY -
IT IS ILLEGAL FOR A GRADE SCHOOL CHILD TO COLLECT AND RAISE A FROG FROM TADPOLE IN AT LEAST THE GREAT STATE OF COLORADO.
TODAY-
IT IS ILLEGAL FOR A CHILD TO FIND AND TAKE A COMMON ANIMAL SUCH AS A CORN SNAKE OR BLACK RATSNAKE FROM HIS YARD AND PLACE IT IN A CAGE IN HIS BEDROOM TO KEEP AS A PET IN THE BEAUTIFUL STATE OF GEORGIA.
TODAY-
IT IS ILLEGAL FOR A NATURE PHOTOGRAPHER TO GATHER HIS GEAR AND HEAD OUT TO ANY CALIFORNIA STATE PARK FOR THE PURPOSE OF PHOTOGRAPHING REPTILES.
TODAY -
IT IS ILLEGAL TO PICK UP A ROCK IN ANY NATIONAL MONUMENT, PUT IT IN YOUR POCKET AND TAKE IT HOME.
All of these horrific crimes are punishable by imprisonment.
I am sure with a little research and careful thought I could list scores/hundreds/thousands of similar examples. This is all I have easily from within my feeble brain.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2013 18:59:39 GMT -5
btw, in California; if that photographer pursues reptiles or amphibians in a state park for any purpose and enjoys the knowledge of a field guide while doing so, he/she will have that field guide entered into evidence as proof of his/her illegal activities. Just the same as if a woman can have a condom in her purse used as proof of prostitution activities. A photographer can have his field guide used as evidence of a crime. Yes folks, possession of condoms is proof of so-called "illegal activity".
|
|
|
Post by helens on May 14, 2013 3:03:24 GMT -5
Can't say I know much about tadpoles or snakes in Colorado or Georgia... but far as I know, you can raise all the critters you find in the wild in NY, Va, Florida. Actually, in Florida, you can raise lions, tigers and bears with a simple permit last I heard, so no clue where those goofy laws came from, nor would I blame environmentalists for overzealous parents and teachers who press their local/state legislators for dumb laws. Never heard of any law where a nature photographer can't take a photo of whatever they'd like either, so I looked it up: www.californiaherps.com/info/herpinglaws.htmlBit of an exaggeration to say you can't take photos. You cannot CAPTURE one, and here is the California law about it, from the California site: "Most herpers are not content just to watch the herps they find. They want to catch herps even if they plan to release them. Sometimes that is the only way to identify what you see. Fish and Game (now Fish and Wildlife) officers have told me that all herpers need a license if they plan to pick up or handle a herp for any reason, including photography, even though they don't plan to collect it. The reason they give makes sense: if you have an animal in your possession, even if it's only temporarily, and a law enforcement officer sees you with the animal in your possession, it can appear to the officer that you are collecting the animal. If you don't have a license, it will be up to you to convince the officer that your intension was to release the animal. Most people who are collecting an animal illegally will always lie and tell an officer that they were not going to keep it, that they are just taking pictures of it, and this makes it difficult for the officer to determine if you are also lying." How can this LOGIC not make sense to you? Not sure what this has to do with environmentalists so much as people stealing rare critters from California to export, and when caught, claim that they were only going to take pix and let it go? As for taking rocks from national parks, if there was a particularly beautiful formation, and everyone who visited chipped a piece off it, everyone would have a little piece in their house or backyard, but within a few years, there'd be no formation to look at. Perfect case in point, on Key Largo, there's the largest underwater park in the US. It's breathtaking, and one of the reasons that led me to move to Florida. There are several outfits that take snorkler/divers out to see the park, which is 7 miles off of the coast, for day trips. The first time I did this, Spring Break in college, it was like a whole other world... lush underwater corals, schools of every color fish... breathtaking. But it was also very crowded always, with boats from one end of the park to the other. We so fell in love with John Pennekamp park that we'd go down there 2x a year, renting boats every time at the then outrageous rate of $100 a day for just a little flatboat. We eventually bought a nice Searay boat just for that park, so we could drop off of any ramp and go wherever we liked. Our first trip out, we rented a small place with a dock for a week in Key West, and headed out. There's nothing out there. Sand. And more sand. And as far out as you could go, there was more sand. Where was the coral reef? No fish, no coral, no sea fans, nothing. Half dead sponges, and fire sponges. Sea grass on the Gulf side. What the heck? Sure, the water was beautiful... the color of Margaritas, but that wasn't why we went. Few months later, we got a place in Islamorada, which is in the center of the keys. Nothing. Sand. More sand. No coral reefs. When you got 1' outside that park, everything was dead. Everything. Not one sign of COLOR underwater, no jewel tones, no LIFE. The same little silver minnows you see in every other part of the Atlantic ocean, and groupers by the piers, but no coral reef. People killed it all, and if not for John Pennekamp park, you would never know that such a thing as a coral reef ever existed in the Keys. I recall that was in 2003 or 2004... we never went back to the Keys again after that 2nd trip with our own boat. Pretty colored water was the only thing worth seeing outside the park, and we could do that anywhere on the Gulf, without paying the price for hotels in the Keys, and driving endlessly looking for a boatramp deep enough to take the draft of our boat. Before that experience, when I was younger, I had exactly the same attitude as you. Who needs public parks? What is the POINT of them if we can't just treat them like disposable resources? If every tourist can't just help themselves to a souvenir? How annoying that if I want a beautiful boulder, a giant spray of sea fan, a living brain coral that would look great in my living room til I changed my decor... one that was alive and had grown for 100 years, that I might only be interested in a year or 2 before I threw it out because it was dusty? Why can't I kill it and take it home? Well, that's exactly what people did in the rest of the keys, and we found no more brain corals anywhere outside the park. I got my big brain coral anyway, I bought one... from the stores selling them as souvenirs from people willing to strip the Phillipines and the Bahamas... places not protected as parks. I don't THINK they're allowed to sell big corals anymore, or there simply aren't any left, but you used to be able to buy coral for as little as $1 for a fist sized piece. Corals take a long time to grow. And what happened to the boxes of coral I bought? Representative of years, decades of living growth killed so I could take them home in a box? I threw them out of course, because they looked dirty eventually. What a waste. I was so ignorant when I was younger. 100-150 years ago, trains used to take tourists out to have rifle practice across the plains, where herds of bison roamed. They'd pick em off as target practice, no one picked up the meat. And today, how many people would give a lot to SEE a herd of bison roaming the plains? Grant you that realistically, it can't happen anymore, because so much of that land is owned, fenced, and closed off, but letting people help themselves to resources they don't even have a use for means that in big or small ways, we all lose something. Should they let me, you, Mel, Bill, Billy, James, Jean, Susan, every single poster on these forums, each take a hunk out of the nose of a President on Mount Rushmore? What if they let everyone do it? How long before there is no more Mount Rushmore? When we got that hunk of nose home, would we feel like we got something meaningful, when the hunk we took doesn't look like a nose? Trust me, every time I go somewhere, I get the urge to bring something home with me... and I will fess up that I did bring something small home with me from each place. I didn't take a rock from a park, but I did take a rock from the hotel I stayed at in the park, from a mound of rocks just outside my door (which was actually inside the park). It was a very small rock, less than 2" in diameter. And as I sit here looking at the rock, I wonder whether 5 years from now, I'll remember where I got that rock, when piled up with the other cool rocks I already have. And when I realize it, I am glad I didn't take a piece of rock from a beautiful formation that is greater than the sum of its parts. For decades, I saw no point to these silly environmental laws either. But letting ME take something means that everyone can take something. And it's the reverse of building, if everyone takes something, the beautiful thing everyone traveled far to see will no longer be worth seeing, because there won't be any of them to see. And what wonderful thing will all these people do that justified destroying something amazing with? Driveway gravel? You may never agree with me here. I wouldn't have agreed with me 10 years ago. But I'm very glad there are parks that make it worth going to places I would otherwise be completely uninterested in going to. If not for Death Valley National Park, or the Grand Canyon, I would have no use for Vegas. When they let tourists take a hunk of everything worth seeing in those 2 parks, well, like the Keys, I'd have no reason to go again ever. I don't consider a city like Vegas worth wrecking either park to build... and it made me wonder what was there before they built that gaudy ugly city.
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on May 14, 2013 5:26:25 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2013 10:32:04 GMT -5
Well Helen you got the california situation wrong. That essay is far from legal authority. California parks forbid the "take" of reptiles from within their boundaries. In California there is a fish & game regulation that requires a license to: 1.80. TAKE. Hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill fish, amphibians, reptiles, mollusks, crustaceans or invertebrates or attempting to do so.So, see the second word "pursue". The act of driving into the park for the purpose finding a reptile to photograph is proof that you are pursuing reptiles. The Fish & Game officer pulls you over for driving back and forth on the same road all night. He says your "Why are you out here?" soon to be defendant's answer "I am looking for rattlesnake's to photograph, see, here's my camera". Game officer - "Oh.. what's that book by the camera?" Defendant - "It's a field guide to identify the animals". GO - "Oh.. let me see it....." Defendant - "OK here" officer takes book and disappears back to his car. The stop is similar to a traffic stop, except the officer is fish & game and the laws the game regulations not traffic laws. Game regulations carry very different rules with respect to evidence & probable cause. The officer has WAY more leeway in his dealings. Officer returns to car "Let me see your fishing & driver's license", defendant complies. In California we are required to have a fishing license for the purpose of taking reptiles under the regulation cited above. .......Ten minutes later: GO returns to car with misdemeanor citation for taking reptiles in a state park. Dumbfounded the defendant signs his promise to appear. He tells officer I have no intent to "take" a reptile in this park. Only photograph. GO responds "read the regulation, see you in court". And so it went. The defendant read into the regulation to try to understand the violation. Not understanding the violation he pleads innocent and gets a trial. At trial the prosecutor is very clear that while the defendant had no intent to remove an animal from the park, or even touch said animal, but only to photograph, defendant did "pursue" said animal, repeatedly admitting it to the GO and that pursuing a reptile is the same as "taking" a reptile per Fish & Game regulation. Further evidence of the crime is the fact the defendant had this book, a Stebbins Field Guide". Realizing I have been had, I ask the judge if I may first ask a question and change my plea. He agrees. I ask isn't the purpose of the park to preserve animals and that photography by it's very essence helps preserve the animals by increasing awareness thru the images? Judge responds "it would seem so, now young man, what would you like to change your plea to?" ME: "Your honor, with all respect due, under these set of regulations I must plead guilty and ask the court for leniency in sentencing as my activities while illegal certainly were not detrimental to the wildlife within the confines of the state park." His Honor: "It would seem you are correct on all points. I sentence you with a $250 fine, sentence to be waived subject to your having no further violations within the next three years." Thank you your honor. My penalty was a misdemeanor violation on my record, a few nights lost sleep and a day from work. The fine was equal to a months rent in a one bedroom apartment. Same apartment today goes for $1000. The law has not changed in the last 25 years. Perhaps the application of the law has, but that can change at the whim of any officer at any time. I am not sure why you made that list of states, but NY does indeed ban the removal of all it's animals from the wilds of the state. Possession can be a felony. Lastly, the website you paraphrased, does advise that if the act of photography involves touching the animal a game warden has advised the author that act would indeed require a fishing license outside the park (and therefore is banned within the park). The author goes on to say fishing licenses are cheap enough it seem prudent to simply purchase one. He does not go on to discuss activities in the state parks. I will: don't do it. Been there got the ticket.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2013 10:52:52 GMT -5
I take offense to this statement. This isn't even in the universe with my beliefs. You effing made that up to attack me personally.
Except for voicing my distaste, I am not even going to respond to this ad hominem attack, that of putting offensive concepts in the minds of others with zero purpose but to destroy the my credibility.
Only liberal @holes do this. These tactics are what I find personally offensive. One cannot have a civil conversation with a liberal because when one point's out the liberal's inconsistencies, they respond with ad hominem attack.
You may state your own opinions all you effing want. You may not make up my opinions based on what you think they might be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2013 10:53:24 GMT -5
That is awesome! Thanks for sharing.
|
|
|
Post by helens on May 14, 2013 11:39:36 GMT -5
You can take offense at my viewpoint all you want. If they don't represent yours, just say so, no need to get all upset. You implied that gov't was overreaching in their regulations, and I responded with why I thought they overreached, and that I agree with it now, where I once did not. I was a Republican 10 years ago, and that WAS my attitude towards parks. It irked me that you couldn't take rocks or whatever you wanted out of a park. Took me a while to 'get it'.
Very unusual of you to get all bothered about public parks, since the Republican position is to SELL them to the highest bidder. This is no mystery to anyone. What exactly IS your position, since now I'm confused. You must be Republican, since Liberals are arseholes, yet you have respect for national parks, which YOUR group wants to sell. Huh? If they SELL it, those parks are going to get PILLAGED, or fenced off. Taking hunks of it is the least concern of all, so what ARE you concerned by?
As for the California law on animal photography, the site I sent you to was the California Herps guide to California law, and I quoted them. I have no other way of knowing how California deals with critters or photographers. If you say that that's not what happens, and the enforcement is unfair, I take your word for it. Don't get panties in a wad, I have no way of knowing what they do there other than what I read, and I assumed that California Herps know what they are talking about.
As for collecting animals in NY, I grew up in NY, collected frogs, tadpoles, plants, etc, and no one bothered me. Course, no one saw me either, and I have no clue if they would have bothered me if they saw me. Never thought about it growing up, and none of my friends did either, since we all collected 'critters'... including jars of fireflies in our front lawns. Maybe they care? I've never heard of enforcement, but that was decades ago, maybe they enforce now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2013 14:06:55 GMT -5
I used my case as only an example of bad laws that incrementally remove our rights and freedoms. The law was not misapplied in my case. It was applied exactly as written. They law IS overreaching and innappropriate, but the answer is not selective enforcement.
Lack of enforcement of any law is no comfort for a law abiding citizen. A law abiding citizen becomes a victim of bad law at the whim of aggressive enforcement. But only at the choice of the enforcer. Having the law in place takes the choice away from normal folks and make them potential criminals.
The fact you only see two types of folks tells a lot about your mind.
The world is not entirely made of liberals and republicans. I am neither. I consider both parties to be the enemy of free thinking and law abiding people. Both parties work very hard to chip away at our collective freedoms. The leadership keeps switching up between the two parties, so the face of the freedoms we lose change from time to time. But freedoms we do lose, no matter which major party is in office.
I will say it again, why does this country keep putting people in office whose sole goal is to take away freedoms? That is the antithesis of this nations founding concepts.
No, I am not an anarchist. Only folks with weak minds accuse libertarians of being anarchists. We are not.
You may state your opinion. Of course, and I will fight for that right to remain forever. You may not state my opinion for me or others. It is offensive to do so. Re-examine your tactics and you will see how often you do this. Today was simply the first time I am aware of you did this to me. I will not allow it.
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on May 14, 2013 14:29:29 GMT -5
Yeah, Helen's debate style can be a tad myopic. I agree that while it is offensive to be painted as either red or blue, I actually get a chuckle from it, even when directed at me. I know Helen well enough to know she really does not mean to come off as snarky as her comments and suppositions would suggest. Something endearing about her, who knows, maybe she will see the light someday.
Helen, I do enjoy our discussions, and only hold grudges when I think there is malicious intent. And, I think you are misguided, but not by any means someone to dislike over the political sparring.
Besides, she is not alone in her style. . . when the debate with a liberal turns to obfuscation and diversion with a peppering of personally offensive verbiage, you know you have won the argument. . .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2013 14:38:31 GMT -5
Yeah, Helen's debate style can be a tad myopic. I agree that while it is offensive to be painted as either red or blue, I actually get a chuckle from it, even when directed at me. I know Helen well enough to know she really does not mean to come off as snarky as her comments and suppositions would suggest. Something endearing about her, who knows, maybe she will see the light someday. Helen, I do enjoy our discussions, and only hold grudges when I think there is malicious intent. And, I think you are misguided, but not by any means someone to dislike over the political sparring. Besides, she is not alone in her style. . . when the debate with a liberal turns to obfuscation and diversion with a peppering of personally offensive verbiage, you know you have won the argument. . . You are right. Totally. The only issue is the person doing the peppering and obfuscation does not know they lost. If they did they would simply shut their pie-hole. Helen, do you really think a set of laws that is so poorly written that it bans photography of certain wildlife in a state park; is a good law? Forget whether it is enforced or not. Is it good, and just? Should such laws exist?
|
|
|
Post by helens on May 14, 2013 15:35:25 GMT -5
Really? LOL! I'm not even a liberal, I'm a moderate:).
I disagree with way more Republican positions than Democrat positions these days, but that doesn't mean I agree with all Democrat positions by a longshot.
Good point about the snarky, when I see the F*** words come out, I know I won the argument and I get a bit more smug. Sowwy:P.
As for YOUR PERSONAL situation, I have no idea why you would plead guilty if you weren't guilty. The way the LAW READS, it says that you cannot pursue an animal. Well you were sitting in your car, and driving down the road. Was an animal running down the road? No? Then you were NOT pursuing an animal. That an officer decided to charge you with a misdemenor for having a camera and a book in your car is no proof of guilt. A judge cannot recommend a plea, so when you entered a plea of guilty, he then had sentencing discretion, and nothing else. Of course you got a misdemenor on your record, you pleaded guilty. Doh.
I would have demanded a jury trial, just to cost them money and drag it out because they pissed me off.
Actually, have a funny story of when I did just that when the dog catcher STOLE MY DOG from my fenced in yard while I wasn't home, and then gave me a ticket for 'dog at large'. Guess where the ticket was? On my FRONT DOOR. I had a 10' tall fence around my property, he had to COME INSIDE MY PRIVATE GATE to give me a ticket. Essentially admitting guilt to STEALING my dog out of my yard, since my gate was closed when I came home.
I had to sit there in court with drug dealers and crack addicts to talk to the judge, and just got madder and madder. They called me first on the docket, I pleaded Not Guilty, asked for a jury trial, and the judge dismissed my case and started laughing when I told him what happened. What a stinker, I lost my day in court. Some judges are such jerks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2013 16:34:30 GMT -5
Yeah and I realized you did it another time.
I made no such statement about being against parks. I did rail against closing every place that has any natural value from peoples eyes.
The Owhyees are closed, ostensibly, to protect an introduced population of sheep. Huh? Sorry hunny, that is not the same as closing the florida keys to whatever activity it was that ruined the coral reefs.
The quarry need not be present for the pursuer to be taking in California. I was "pursuing" and therefore taking. My purpose was photography but I was looking for and therefore pursuing.
You obfuscated that point into oblivian.
And my original point that "once nobody enjoys nature it will be easy to destroy it" was completely ignored. Perhaps, because the path is so clearly logical even you cannot dispute it.
You never commented at all on my point about condoms as evidence of criminal activity. That right there should have told you I was not "conservative" at all. Open your eyes. Should women be prosecuted for prostitution with condoms being the sole evidence?
As it stands now, it is a crime, and is vigorously enforced that a child cannot bring a pretty rock home from the Big Bend National Monument. Do you think it should be so? Is this just?
eff words, politely, taken back.
|
|
|
Post by helens on May 14, 2013 16:47:13 GMT -5
They didn't close poop in the Keys, they allowed the pillaging til it was sand... and if you can find something besides sand, they probably don't care if you pillage it. Unless it's a lobster. Then you can't have it til lobster season.
SOMEONE needs to test that California law with a jury trial, that sounds absurd. Further, what were you thinking ADMITTING to pursuing to a cop? You have the right to remain silent if you are ARRESTED, what possessed you to not remain silent BEFORE you are arrested? No one can ticket you or arrest you for having a camera and a book in your car. That you got railroaded doesn't mean that everyone with a camera and a lizard book in their car will get arrested.
If I don't dispute it, you can assume it's logical and needs no disagreement because there is no disagreement. Or at least, that I don't care enough about the subject to disagree.
Condoms are criminal activity? Of course not. Women are prosecuted for having condoms? That would be an easy arrest, cops can hang out at the entrance of drug stores, eating donuts while waiting to see what women purchase. They pay for the condom, they get arrested. How come I never heard of this anywhere? Some women should go buy condoms and call the police on themselves to see what they do.
You live in some odd places, maybe you should move if they arrest women for buying condoms and driving in cars with cameras and books about lizards... just saying...
Should people be arrested for stealing parts off of monuments? Uh... YES. Should a child? No, they should ticket the parents for poor parenting. Do I think this is just? Absolutely, what part of the bend would be left if everyone took a piece of it?
Isn't saying that people SHOULD NOT steal things out of national parks exactly what riled you up? That you got all mad because I said that JUST LIKE YOU, I used to not care if parks got pillaged? You thought that was so offensive, and now ask me if it's ok that a CHILD does it? NO ONE can do it. But since children don't know better, it's the perfect opportunity for a parent to TEACH the child better.
And to help them teach it better, they need a $100 (or whatever it is) ticket. Parents are legally responsible for their children til they are 18. If their kid has to pay restitution, they pay it, so they can pay the ticket too. You'd better believe that if I stole a rock from a park at age 5, and my parents spanked me, I'd never have even thought of stealing a rock from a park again.. instead of feeling sad that I couldn't steal all the rocks I wanted from any park.
|
|
|
Post by rockpickerforever on May 14, 2013 18:16:43 GMT -5
Sort of like: One morning, the husband returns the boat to their lakeside cottage after several hours of fishing and decides to take a nap. Although not familiar with the lake, the wife decides to take the boat out. She motors out a short distance, anchors, puts her feet up and begins to read her book. The peace and solitude are magnificent.
Along comes a Fish and Game Warden in his boat.
He pulls up alongside the woman and says, 'Good morning, Ma'am. What are you doing?' 'Reading a book,' she replies, (thinking, 'Isn't that obvious?')
'You're in a Restricted Fishing Area,' he informs her.
'I'm sorry, officer, but I'm not fishing. I'm reading.'
'Yes, but I see you have all the equipment. For all I know you could start at any moment. I'll have to take you in and write you up. 'If you do that, I'll have to charge you with sexual assault,' says the woman.
'But I haven't even touched you,' says the Game Warden.
'That's true, but you have all the equipment. For all I know you could start at any moment.' 'Have a nice day ma'am,' and he left.
|
|
|
Post by helens on May 14, 2013 18:18:52 GMT -5
LOL! Well said Jean:)!! Haaa! Love that one, oldie but goodie:).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2013 20:53:50 GMT -5
condoms ARE used as evidence of the 'crime' of prostitution. While it is used all over the most famous place to do it is your home state of new york. www.nocondomsasevidence.org/I posted this link earlier, but you failed to parse it. I believe it happens in California but have no proof. Helen, I read about misjustice all over the country. Not just my backyard. I could go on for hours with hundreds or (if I had the energy) thousands of links to injustices perpetrated on humans.
|
|
robsrockshop
has rocks in the head
Member since August 2012
Posts: 715
|
Post by robsrockshop on May 14, 2013 21:43:49 GMT -5
As long as there's enough water to brew my beer that's all that matters.
|
|
|
Post by helens on May 15, 2013 5:41:52 GMT -5
condoms ARE used as evidence of the 'crime' of prostitution. While it is used all over the most famous place to do it is your home state of new york. www.nocondomsasevidence.org/I posted this link earlier, but you failed to parse it. I believe it happens in California but have no proof. Helen, I read about misjustice all over the country. Not just my backyard. I could go on for hours with hundreds or (if I had the energy) thousands of links to injustices perpetrated on humans. Not that I particularly care, but I have no idea why anyone would get arrested for possession of something they bought in a store. Well, when I think about it, what normal woman buys condoms anyway? That's like asking why a man would drive around with tampons in his pocket.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2013 10:01:55 GMT -5
condoms ARE used as evidence of the 'crime' of prostitution. While it is used all over the most famous place to do it is your home state of new york. www.nocondomsasevidence.org/I posted this link earlier, but you failed to parse it. I believe it happens in California but have no proof. Helen, I read about misjustice all over the country. Not just my backyard. I could go on for hours with hundreds or (if I had the energy) thousands of links to injustices perpetrated on humans. Not that I particularly care, but I have no idea why anyone would get arrested for possession of something they bought in a store. Well, when I think about it, what normal woman buys condoms anyway? That's like asking why a man would drive around with tampons in his pocket. I guess you agree that a woman possessing condoms is proof of a crime.
|
|