5 ms·

None of these seem to reflect what I was asking about. #1: Woman was arrested for contempt of court #2: Man was arrested for violating terms of probation #3:

None of these seem to reflect what I was asking about. #1: Woman was arrested for contempt of court #2: Man was arrested for violating terms of probation #3: This seems to fit the narrative, but, I quote: "The judge admitted that [unkempt-lawn-haver] is not a criminal and it was not a criminal case." It appears that a judge gave her the option of community service or 6 hours in jail to waive a (civil) fine? #4: Appears to be about police arresting someone who shot lawnmowers with a gun

floatingatoll 5y ago
I would normally engage with someone and take apart each of the examples and demonstrate how they all do in fact stem directly from lawn maintenance laws. However, I can't come up with any way to give you the benefit the doubt for your series of replies here. You seem to have refused to perform your own research and draw conclusions from the results you find on your own, and I'm not interested in trying to argue with someone who simultaneously demands research from others (on an internet web forum, no less) while not performing even the most basic work themselves. With apologies, you'll have to move forward without further input from me.
- sithadmin 5y ago
  The question isn't whether the events in each of these examples you highlighted 'stem directly from lawn maintenance laws' - they all unquestionably do. But none of them seem to be cases where the act of keeping an unkempt lawn itself was a criminal act, which seemed to be what your original claim was.
  - R0b0t1 5y ago
    It very quickly goes into criminality. A lot of non-criminal punishments are things like fines, or withdrawing your drivers license, and after that you run into things that do actually make you a criminal, like repeatedly driving without a license or repeatedly failing to pay a court ordered bill.
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  That reminds me of some AI ethicist who have as a "policy" to never give a platform to their opponents. ie, never respond to their arguments and just keep mobbing. Interesting.
  - floatingatoll 5y ago
    I notice that you've now tried twice to attack my character in this thread rather than participate in the discussion of the topic; once by claiming an outrageous belief that I don't believe, and once by claiming that I'm refusing to discuss the topic with anyone who disagrees with me. See also the reply to your other attempt where your question evidences either a failure to read my original comment, as instead of contradicting the argument presented (which answers the question you asked) or an attempt to water down my original post by asking my to repeat myself for no relevant purpose to the discussion except to take up my time and grant implied validity to your framing. As my history represents, I do quite often spend an unusually high amount of time in discussions on the site, sometimes farther into the weeds than the site generally has good UI for, when people are engaging with a conscious desire to converse, even when we disagree. I rarely choose to end participation in a thread before the other persons tires of replying, but I make a special exception for threads about gender and race, because in those areas there are known conversational tactics that involve draining time and credibility through sealioning. As your history represents, you have on multiple occasions attempted to change the course of conversations about race and racism from race and racism to anything but race and racism, which does not suggest that it's productive to engage with you at length on the topic of racism that I'm discussing here today. Whether or not we'd end up agreeing, it's not useful to others for me to enable that for you, and it's not the conversation I'm here to have today. You are of course welcome to start your own thread with your beliefs, but I'm not required to help you do so. I understand this will feed into whatever conspiracy theory you're trying to promote, but I have dessert waiting in the kitchen and that's more important to me right now than your opinion of me. I encourage you to email any complaints you have about my behavior here to the mods directly to the address in the footer contact link, but I must also advise that you'll find that HN guidelines are not compatible with implied accusations of bad faith behavior in the manner you're doing here. As the guidelines indicate, if you feel that I am participating in bad faith on HN, email the mods.
R0b0t1 5y ago
#1-3 are still on point, in areas of the country these petty charges are used as ways to get you "into the system" so they can take more money out of you. https://features.propublica.org/medical-debt/when-medical-debt-collectors-decide-who-gets-arrested-coffeyville-kansas/ https://features.propublica.org/medical-debt/when-medical-de... Also there is worse happening, like where a city in I think MO was using yard upkeep fines and their nonpayment to put people in jail and then condemn their house so that it could be seized for property development.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- floatingatoll 5y ago
  I encourage revisiting #4 and considering the question "Why was that lawn being mowed?". Unexpectedly, it's Florida rather than Texas, where such a shooting would have been considered lawful and just (in Texas).
  - R0b0t1 5y ago
    I agree that #4 counts. If they finish you get a bill. I would probably shoot at them too, but if you avoid killing anyone it's not likely to turn out good for you. Typically you get more sympathy if you end up killing someone. Before someone notes this is extremely bloodthirsty, it's not just about a lawn being cut, it's about the state arbitrarily demanding your money.
- sithadmin 5y ago
  I don't really agree that 1-3 are on point. The quote from the judge in 3 makes it clear that the woman in question was never charged with a criminal offense, and in fact chose to sit in a jail for 6 hours in lieu of paying a civil fine. As for the other two cases - the issues started with the lawn upkeep, yes, but the criminal aspect slips in for unrelated reasons. In #1, it's not clear exactly why contempt charges came into play, and it's quite unusual (and in many jurisdictions, not legal) to charge someone with criminal contempt for simple refusal to pay a civil fine...which leads me to believe there's something key being omitted here. In #2, it seems like the guy would have been fine keeping an unkempt lawn had he not explicitly violated a previous probation agreement; this isn't a situation that applies to the average person.

floatingatoll 5y ago

I would normally engage with someone and take apart each of the examples and demonstrate how they all do in fact stem directly from lawn maintenance laws. However, I can't come up with any way to give you the benefit the doubt for your series of replies here. You seem to have refused to perform your own research and draw conclusions from the results you find on your own, and I'm not interested in trying to argue with someone who simultaneously demands research from others (on an internet web forum, no less) while not performing even the most basic work themselves. With apologies, you'll have to move forward without further input from me.

sithadmin 5y ago
The question isn't whether the events in each of these examples you highlighted 'stem directly from lawn maintenance laws' - they all unquestionably do. But none of them seem to be cases where the act of keeping an unkempt lawn itself was a criminal act, which seemed to be what your original claim was.
- R0b0t1 5y ago
  It very quickly goes into criminality. A lot of non-criminal punishments are things like fines, or withdrawing your drivers license, and after that you run into things that do actually make you a criminal, like repeatedly driving without a license or repeatedly failing to pay a court ordered bill.
908B64B197 5y ago
That reminds me of some AI ethicist who have as a "policy" to never give a platform to their opponents. ie, never respond to their arguments and just keep mobbing. Interesting.
- floatingatoll 5y ago
  I notice that you've now tried twice to attack my character in this thread rather than participate in the discussion of the topic; once by claiming an outrageous belief that I don't believe, and once by claiming that I'm refusing to discuss the topic with anyone who disagrees with me. See also the reply to your other attempt where your question evidences either a failure to read my original comment, as instead of contradicting the argument presented (which answers the question you asked) or an attempt to water down my original post by asking my to repeat myself for no relevant purpose to the discussion except to take up my time and grant implied validity to your framing. As my history represents, I do quite often spend an unusually high amount of time in discussions on the site, sometimes farther into the weeds than the site generally has good UI for, when people are engaging with a conscious desire to converse, even when we disagree. I rarely choose to end participation in a thread before the other persons tires of replying, but I make a special exception for threads about gender and race, because in those areas there are known conversational tactics that involve draining time and credibility through sealioning. As your history represents, you have on multiple occasions attempted to change the course of conversations about race and racism from race and racism to anything but race and racism, which does not suggest that it's productive to engage with you at length on the topic of racism that I'm discussing here today. Whether or not we'd end up agreeing, it's not useful to others for me to enable that for you, and it's not the conversation I'm here to have today. You are of course welcome to start your own thread with your beliefs, but I'm not required to help you do so. I understand this will feed into whatever conspiracy theory you're trying to promote, but I have dessert waiting in the kitchen and that's more important to me right now than your opinion of me. I encourage you to email any complaints you have about my behavior here to the mods directly to the address in the footer contact link, but I must also advise that you'll find that HN guidelines are not compatible with implied accusations of bad faith behavior in the manner you're doing here. As the guidelines indicate, if you feel that I am participating in bad faith on HN, email the mods.

R0b0t1 5y ago

#1-3 are still on point, in areas of the country these petty charges are used as ways to get you "into the system" so they can take more money out of you. https://features.propublica.org/medical-debt/when-medical-debt-collectors-decide-who-gets-arrested-coffeyville-kansas/ https://features.propublica.org/medical-debt/when-medical-de... Also there is worse happening, like where a city in I think MO was using yard upkeep fines and their nonpayment to put people in jail and then condemn their house so that it could be seized for property development.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
floatingatoll 5y ago
I encourage revisiting #4 and considering the question "Why was that lawn being mowed?". Unexpectedly, it's Florida rather than Texas, where such a shooting would have been considered lawful and just (in Texas).
- R0b0t1 5y ago
  I agree that #4 counts. If they finish you get a bill. I would probably shoot at them too, but if you avoid killing anyone it's not likely to turn out good for you. Typically you get more sympathy if you end up killing someone. Before someone notes this is extremely bloodthirsty, it's not just about a lawn being cut, it's about the state arbitrarily demanding your money.
sithadmin 5y ago
I don't really agree that 1-3 are on point. The quote from the judge in 3 makes it clear that the woman in question was never charged with a criminal offense, and in fact chose to sit in a jail for 6 hours in lieu of paying a civil fine. As for the other two cases - the issues started with the lawn upkeep, yes, but the criminal aspect slips in for unrelated reasons. In #1, it's not clear exactly why contempt charges came into play, and it's quite unusual (and in many jurisdictions, not legal) to charge someone with criminal contempt for simple refusal to pay a civil fine...which leads me to believe there's something key being omitted here. In #2, it seems like the guy would have been fine keeping an unkempt lawn had he not explicitly violated a previous probation agreement; this isn't a situation that applies to the average person.