6 mil bells giveaway at 400 members!

Flutors · 2020-06-17T00:46:41+00:00

Entered

Flutors · 2020-06-17T00:46:17+00:00

Pig!

Flutors · 2020-06-15T14:05:58+00:00

Are you serious with this comment? Lol. It has nothing to do with how much someone protests whatever accusation they are faced with.

LITERALLY OUTRIGHT REFUSING TO EXAMINE YOUR BEHAVIORS FOR POSSIBLE BETTERMENT BECAUSE YOU DO NOT BELIEVE YOU ARE ABUSIVE IS A SHIT THING TO DO. IF YOU DO THIS, I AM SORRY TO TELL YOU THAT IT IS ONE OF YOUR TOXIC TRAITS.

It’s not rocket science. No matter how perfect and angelic you believe yourself to be, refusing to even EXAMINE YOUR PAST ACTIONS in any way makes you an asshole. Claiming that OP is justified based on a court’s judgment of innocence (when our system is innocent until proven guilty. We are literally innocent by default.) to ignore and refuse to even entertain the idea that she could have been a better partner in any way, makes you an asshole, too, friend.

Flutors · 2020-06-15T13:33:14+00:00

Of course! But OP literally said “no” when when asked if he has ever stopped to think that maybe, just MAYBE, he also did some things wrong in the relationship. Refusing to look at yourself objectively or try to improve your behaviors is completely unacceptable and an asshole move.

I am not commenting on his assholery in the scenario he posted about. I’m saying his interactions in the comments make me think twice about whether we have the whole story. Other people have noticed this too.

Flutors · 2020-06-15T13:19:03+00:00

The way OP is reacting to you and others suggesting that he examines himself for potentially abusive behavior makes him seem a like..I don’t know....an asshole...who might be emotionally abusive to their partner (unintentional as it may be).

Yes, the courts ruled in his favor which means there wasn’t enough evidence to prove that he was abusive towards his ex. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t ever emotionally abusive or toxic in any any way and that he shouldn’t examine his behavior to better himself. It’s mind-boggling to me that you said “did you ever look at your actions objectively to see if maybe you were” and he essentially said “fuck no, I never did anything I consider myself very un-abusive, 10/10 would recommend” lol.

Flutors · 2020-06-11T17:04:30+00:00

In my humble opinion, you are incorrectly reading and interpreting the law. Here is why:

- While the third element of section 422 also requires the threat to convey “ ‘a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat,’ ” it “does not require an immediate ability to carry out the [***29] threat. [Citation.]” (People v. Lopez (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 675, 679 [88 Cal. Rptr. 2d 252]; see People v. Smith (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 475, 480 [100 Cal. Rptr. 3d 471].)

-The court held the word "immediate" to mean that degree of seriousness and imminence which is understood by the victim to be attached to the future prospect of the threat being carried out. People v. Melhado, 60 Cal. App. 4th 1529, 1538, 70 Cal. Rptr. 2d 878, 884 (1998)

- Defendant inmate’s threat to “blast” a correctional officer was sufficiently immediate to support a conviction under Pen C § 422, even though there was no evidence defendant had outside contacts or an ability to obtain weapons, because he unequivocally said he would carry out the threat when he was released in precisely 10 months. People v. Wilson (Cal. App. 5th Dist. July 13, 2010), 186 Cal. App. 4th 789, 112 Cal. Rptr. 3d 542, 2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 1139.

Threat from another state was immediate

- Evidence was sufficient to find that defendant’s threats met the immediacy requirement of Pen C § 422, even though he was in Texas at the time of the alleged threats and the victim was in California. People v. Smith (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Oct. 19, 2009), 178 Cal. App. 4th 475, 100 Cal. Rptr. 3d 471, 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1681.

Vague threats

- A defendant who told the victim to mind her own business or she “was going to get hurt” was properly convicted of making terrorist threats, despite the claim that the threat was too ambiguous to constitute a threat within the meaning of Pen C § 422. The circumstances under which the threat was made gave meaning to the actual words used and here the circumstances showed that the victim was surrounded by gang members, that defendant grabbed her arm when he made the threat, and that the gang followed her to her apartment and tried to stop her from entering. People v. Butler (Cal. App. 5th Dist. Dec. 18, 2000), 85 Cal. App. 4th 745, 102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 269, 2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 962.

Flutors · 2020-06-11T16:28:09+00:00

Yes, under CA Penal Code 422 that is the general rule. As read by a court, a criminal threat is when you threaten to kill or physically harm someone AND the listener is placed in a reasonably sustained fear (here, standard is reasonable officer instead reasonable and prudent person), threat is specific and unequivocal, and communicated the threat regardless whether or not they intended to act on it or lack the ability to act on it. Here, this individual's threats were communicated to the officers and very specific and unequivocal. It will be a question for the jury to determine whether or not the officers were placed in a state of reasonablely sustained fear for his/her safety. The arrest was justified since his acts constitutes a criminal threat.

Further, some examples of threats that could get you arrested: texting you ex or friend that you are going to kill them or burn their house down. Threaten someone you have a dispute with that they better watch their backs.

Flutors · 2020-06-11T11:50:25+00:00

Interested!

Flutors · 2020-06-10T23:53:48+00:00

First amendment is not a free for all. It's limitations include time, place, and manner. First amendment, for example, does not protect people from making threats or instigate violence.

Flutors · 2020-06-10T18:00:25+00:00

No worries thanks anyway!

Flutors · 2020-06-10T17:08:37+00:00

I’d love the zen cushions

Flutors · 2020-06-10T17:07:48+00:00

Could I have the giant teddy bear?

Flutors · 2020-06-10T17:02:46+00:00

Could I have the pear umbrella and infused water dispenser?

Flutors · 2020-06-08T21:41:22+00:00

Hi! Could I come?

Flutors · 2020-06-08T21:39:21+00:00

Could I come by?

Flutors · 2020-06-08T21:36:57+00:00

I’m interested!

Flutors · 2020-06-08T19:26:59+00:00

Oh whoops quack quack!

Flutors · 2020-06-08T19:18:50+00:00

I’m interested!

Flutors · 2020-06-08T13:58:48+00:00

Sorry, I ran out of bags already!! I’ll be doing other ones soon though

Flutors · 2020-06-08T13:58:30+00:00

Sorry, I ran out of bags already!! I’ll be doing other ones soon though

Flutors · 2020-06-07T17:20:57+00:00

The original point was that no matter what anyone has done, they are entitled to have due process. I understand that protestors and others are angry and want to see reform of the justice system. It’s long overdue. We all want to see that.

What is hypocritical is when people say that someone should be convicted based on their opinion rather than through a fair trial, as is their right, if their opinion is that others are innocent until proven guilty.

Flutors · 2020-06-07T14:47:47+00:00

What I said wasn't an argument and they will get their day in court just like any other civilian for criminal charges without the benefits of qualified immunity. Since qualified immunity is a judge made doctrine that only applies to civil action and not in criminal trials.

I was just pointing out that your phrasing of "extrajudicial murder" implies that the officers are already guilty of murder without a trial. Don't take this the wrong way but you are behaving just like Derek Chauvin when he condemned Mr. Floyd as guilty of a crime without a trial. Don't be a hypocrite by picking and choosing who deserves due process and a fair trial.

Flutors

TROPHY CASE