Man Prosecuted for Posting a Picture of His Hobby on Facebook

as a Airsoft player, not surprised given its location. Now in the states, id be surprised.

It'll get tossed out.
 
When I was in high school I definitely had a cop come to my dads door with a complaint from a neighbor that I riding my bicycle dangerously in my backyard.....
He said he only showed up to shut the neighbor up.

People have only gotten worse.

At least my generation isn't snorting cocaine and playing with lawn darts
 
viper1152012 said:
At least my generation isn't snorting cocaine and playing with lawn darts
Click to expand...
To me, that seems like a reference to the stereotypical American '80s excess of the people born in the '60s. Or what were you referring to?
 
PNut12345 said:
Express those feeling to the guy who broke into your home to rape and murder your family. Maybe he'll understand where you're coming from, apologize, drop a 20 on the table for your trouble, and leave.
Click to expand...

You fear this everyday? Interesting thought process.
 
WorldExclusive said:
What about pictures with real guns in a menacing manner?
Click to expand...

The problem is, how do you define "menacing?" A picture pointing a gun at another person? Probably. A picture holding a gun. Not at all. The problem is that it is subject to interpretation first, to the complainant who reported this to the police, second, to the police who determine whether or not to arrest, and finally, to the judge who adjudicates the matter.
 
kirbyrj said:
The problem is, how do you define "menacing?" A picture pointing a gun at another person? Probably. A picture holding a gun. Not at all. The problem is that it is subject to interpretation first, to the complainant who reported this to the police, second, to the police who determine whether or not to arrest, and finally, to the judge who adjudicates the matter.
Click to expand...

I believe US laws have common sense built in, but lawyers still have to prove or disprove an accusation, even accusations that are wacky.
Unfortunately in a capitalist society money tends to win, so things can get wacky in the court room or congress and unjust sentences and laws are passed.
 
c3k said:
His biggest mistake? Not being a muslim immigrant (oops, "refugee") into England and claiming that this picture was him celebrating his heritage. Then there'd not have been any prosecution.

Did that hit too close to home? I hope so.
Click to expand...
Well by your logic he definitely fucked up, given that he was in Scotland not England.
 
Bawjaws said:
Well by your logic he definitely fucked up, given that he was in Scotland not England.
Click to expand...

Scotland? Well, that changes everything! I'd have thought a land with such a history of fighting would not have embrace the new pan-euro-pacificism sweeping that continent. It's worse than I thought. There must be many chiefs of the great clans spinning in their graves.
 
c3k said:
Scotland? Well, that changes everything! I'd have thought a land with such a history of fighting would not have embrace the new pan-euro-pacificism sweeping that continent. It's worse than I thought. There must be many chiefs of the great clans spinning in their graves.
Click to expand...


well not surprising since the bloke with the dog doing then Nazi salute who was arrested was from Scotland too
 
tbonepat11 said:
It is like looking into the future here in USA with how much the 1st Amendment is under assault.
Click to expand...

quoted for future reference so that people doing the 1st amendment and 2nd amendment abolishing tactics can see that people knew what they were up to in 2017 when claiming they didn't want to abolish them...
 
WorldExclusive said:
You fear this everyday? Interesting thought process.
Click to expand...

And you don't? Interesting thought process......... The reality is this, bad shit happens to people. Good or bad, it makes no difference. People break into homes all the time for various reasons. Not all of which are simply about theft where no one gets hurt. If you aren't worried enough to take proactive measures to protect yourself, then your thought processes are disconnected from reality. PNut's "fear" as you put it is a healthy one. Taking measures such as owning a firearm, training with it, and being prepared to defend yourself against the possibility of a break in isn't a crippling fear that's all consuming. It's something that can and does happen to normal people, even in nice neighborhoods. It's something you can prepare for and take measures to both prevent, and deal with should it happen. Break-ins for theft related reasons usually occur when people are least likely to be home. The other kind of break-ins that occur during the hours people are likely to be home are the kind you should worry more about. In those cases, it's likely the intruder intends to do you or your family harm.

The old saying, "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away" is true when 911 response times are over 10 to 15 minutes in major metropolitan areas such as Dallas. Police, by their nature are reactive, not proactive. Unless a police officer happens to be present when an assault, a break-in or a crime of some sort begins, you have no protection unless you provide it. People are much more vulnerable than they'd like to believe. The Supreme Court also ruled that Police have no duty to protect you either. So, police being too late to assist you isn't their problem. It's yours.

When people like me can be heard screaming "muh guns" it's because history proves that removal of firearms from the hands of the law abiding populace does not prevent them from falling into the hands of the criminal element. If you look at gun trace data collected by the FBI, you will still find a large percentage of firearms which have been out of production for more than a decade. This tells us that straw purchases, and legal firearms are rarely the issue. It's easy to say that removing them from the populace will remove them from the hands of criminals, but this won't work so long as they are produced. As long as police and military supply lines exist, they will be available to criminals. When it comes to eradication of a problem, all sources must be eradicated. You will never get police and military forces to give up their guns, so again, you can't just "remove" them and be successful. Taking them out of the hands of the law abiding public will only serve to embolden criminals who will have a much less hostile working environment. In cities where police are overwhelmed, they'll have all the time they need to do whatever they like without fear of reprisal. In countries like Great Britain, gun violence still occurs. The difference is, you have no means of protecting yourself from an aggressor. If someone is younger, a better fighter than you, stronger, bigger, etc. then you are fucked without a weapon. Tasers, pepper spray, mace, etc. all have mixed track records when it comes to effectiveness. Only an instrument that's capable of grievous injury, or killing is feared by the criminal element. Like any predator, people like that only understand strength.

I believe, that the right to self-defense is an inalienable human right that everyone should have. For this, you can either adopt a mentality where only the strongest, fittest, youngest, and best fighters are the only people who would survive such contests or level the playing field with access to firearms. For example: In Terrell Texas a few years ago, an elderly man was walking his dog in the park as he had done for over 10 years when two youths stuck a gun in his face in broad daylight, demanding his wallet. Instead, the elderly man pulled his concealed weapon, shot one of them in the face and wounded the other who was arrested at a nearby hospital while being treated for a gunshot wound. Both these recidivistic scumbags had lengthy criminal histories at the ripe ages of 17 and 19 if I recall correctly, which included violent offenses. Exactly, what would you rather have happen? The elderly man be beaten, shot to death? Compliance doesn't necessarily guarantee survival, so what would you suggest? Sure, the youths might have disarmed the man, or shot him before he could respond. No one has ever said that can't happen too as it sometimes does. However, having a firearm gave him a fighting chance. That's all I'd ever ask for if something like that has to happen. Whatever happens, I want the ability and the tools to come out on top. If I don't, I don't, but at least I had the tools and the opportunity to try.

People who feel menaced by airsoft guns or real firearms they don't own, simply want to impose their collective will on people because they are narcissists who believe their own emotional needs are greater than those of other people. As a gun owner, I don't care if someone else around me owns them or not. Just as I couldn't care less that my neighbor drives a Chevrolet truck instead of a Ford like me. The leftists, who talk of inclusiveness and tolerance tend to be the most intolerant people I've ever run across. You don't live in the real world if you need to crawl into a safe space in the fetal position because you saw some guy pose with airsoft replicas.

The mental weakness, of young adults these days is truly astounding and disturbing. What kind of future do we have as a society, when people are frightened of a picture on Facebook of a guy posing with fake guns? What's next? Where will the next line be drawn? Movie posters? You start down these roads of stupidity, and sooner or later you'll be so far in it will take forever to turn shit around.
 
Last edited:
Good thing he didn't have any hentai in those pictures. Child molestation with a weapon is an extremely punishable offense!
 
GDI Lord said:
To me, that seems like a reference to the stereotypical American '80s excess of the people born in the '60s. Or what were you referring to?
Click to expand...


Oh no dude, the 60's wasn't about cocaine

The sixties was either about grass, heroin, LSD, and hash

Or it was about uppers and downers

Cocaine wasn't that big then.

EDIT: Ooops, sorry, you were talking about the 80's not the 60's.
 
Dan_D said:
And you don't? Interesting thought process......... The reality is this, bad shit happens to people. Good or bad, it makes no difference. People break into homes all the time for various reasons. Not all of which are simply about theft where no one gets hurt. If you aren't worried enough to take proactive measures to protect yourself, then your thought processes are disconnected from reality. PNut's "fear" as you put it is a healthy one. Taking measures such as owning a firearm, training with it, and being prepared to defend yourself against the possibility of a break in isn't a crippling fear that's all consuming. It's something that can and does happen to normal people, even in nice neighborhoods. It's something you can prepare for and take measures to both prevent, and deal with should it happen. Break-ins for theft related reasons usually occur when people are least likely to be home. The other kind of brea-ins that occur during the hours people are likely to be home are the kind you should worry more about. In those cases, it's likely the intruder intends to do you or your family harm.

The old saying, "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away" is true when 911 response times are over 10 to 15 minutes in major metropolitan areas such as Dallas. Police, by their nature are reactive, not proactive. Unless a police officer happens to be present when an assault, a break-in or a crime of some sort begins, you have no protection unless you provide it. People are much more vulnerable than they'd like to believe. The Supreme Court also ruled that Police have no duty to protect you either. So, police being too late to assist you isn't their problem. It's yours.

When people like me can be heard screaming "muh guns" it's because history proves that removal of firearms from the hands of the law abiding populace does not prevent them from falling into the hands of the criminal element. If you look at gun trace data collected by the FBI, you will still find a large percentage of firearms which have been out of production for more than a decade. This tells us that straw purchases, and legal firearms are rarely the issue. It's easy to say that removing them from the populace will remove them from the hands of criminals, but this won't work so long as they are produced. As long as police and military supply lines exist, they will be available to criminals. When it comes to eradication of a problem, all sources must be eradicated. You will never get police and military forces to give up their guns, so again, you can't just "remove" them and be successful. Taking them out of the hands of the law abiding public will only serve to embolden criminals who will have a much less hostile working environment. In cities where police are overwhelmed, they'll have all the time they need to do whatever they like without fear of reprisal. In countries like Great Britain, gun violence still occurs. The difference is, you have no means of protecting yourself from an aggressor. If someone is younger, a better fighter than you, stronger, bigger, etc. then you are fucked without a weapon. Tasers, pepper spray, mace, etc. all have mixed track records when it comes to effectiveness. Only an instrument that's capable of grievous injury, or killing is feared by the criminal element. Like any predator, people like that only understand strength.

I believe, that the right to self-defense is an inalienable human right that everyone should have. For this, you can either adopt a mentality where only the strongest, fittest, youngest, and best fighters are the only people who would survive such contests or level the playing field with access to firearms. For example: In Terrell Texas a few years ago, an elderly man was walking his dog in the park as he had done for over 10 years when two youths stuck a gun in his face in broad daylight, demanding his wallet. Instead, the elderly man pulled his concealed weapon, shot one of them in the face and wounded the other who was arrested at a nearby hospital while being treated for a gunshot wound. Both these recidivistic scumbags had lengthy criminal histories at the ripe ages of 17 and 19 if I recall correctly, which included violent offenses. Exactly, what would you rather have happen? The elderly man be beaten, shot to death? Compliance doesn't necessarily guarantee survival, so what would you suggest? Sure, the youths might have disarmed the man, or shot him before he could respond. No one has ever said that can't happen too as it sometimes does. However, having a firearm gave him a fighting chance. That's all I'd ever ask for if something like that has to happen. Whatever happens, I want the ability and the tools to come out on top. If I don't, I don't, but at least I had the tools and the opportunity to try.

People who feel menaced by airsoft guns or real firearms they don't own, simply want to impose their collective will on people because they are narcissists who believe their own emotional needs are greater than those of other people. As a gun owner, I don't care if someone else around me owns them or not. Just as I couldn't care less that my neighbor drives a Chevrolet truck instead of a Ford like me. The leftists, who talk of inclusiveness and tolerance tend to be the most intolerant people I've ever run across. You don't live in the real world if you need to crawl into a safe space in the fetal position because you saw some guy pose with airsoft replicas.

The mental weakness, of young adults these days is truly astounding and disturbing. What kind of future do we have as a society, when people are frightened of a picture on Facebook of a guy posing with fake guns? What's next? Where will the next line be drawn? Movie posters? You start down these roads of stupidity, and sooner or later you'll be so far in it will take forever to turn shit around.
Click to expand...
Forum won't let me like this more than once :(.
 
GoldenTiger, I for one am not convinced that anyone is ever frightened of a photo they see online unless it's a photo that demonstrates to the viewer that their view of reality, and a perceived sense of safety, has been false.

To illustrate, I saw this documentary called "Red in the Face" or "Blood in the Face", it was about White Supremacists and I saw it back in 1098 or early 1999. It was eye opening to learn that some of these groups would see me as "not pure enough", that they claim to know who "their enemies are", that "they are watching us" and biding their time.

I did not take that story lightly. The man speaking on that show impressed upon me that I have enemies I never realized I had. Enemies who live within my own country who profess hate of who and what I am.

Now I have always had guns, I grew up with them and they have always been a casual tool like any other tool. I don't run around hitting cats and dogs with hammers and axes, and I don't shoot animals without purpose and need. I also don't pose for pictures with guns as if I were celebrating my ownership or trumpeting my power. I don't imagine that you do either.

So I'll get back to my point about people feeling threatened and fearful of pictures on the internet. I think it's bullshit and that it's being exploited for a purpose. We probably are not that far apart on this either.
 
First, what they did to him was a flagrant violation of his rights and I hope he sues and wins.

Second, I'm not certain which I find more amusing; An adult posing with plastic pellet guns or the fact that he got arrested for posing with plastic pellet guns.
 
Dan_D said:
And you don't? Interesting thought process......... *SNIP*
Click to expand...

As much as I don't like the idea of a nation having more guns than people (though I believe this stems from the "chicken and egg" problem), your post made it really hard to refute it either, and I fully accept it entirely, thank you for the post.

But personally, I have no problems with people posing WITH guns, let alone AIR guns. Military recruitment posters do it all the time, movie posters do it all the time, historical photographs do it too. I honestly do not see what the problem could possibly be coming from.

Images tells us nothing without context, and he doesn't seem to be putting the image as a threat to anyone.
 
spinach_chin said:
So do you reckon objecting to almost being thrown in jail for posting pictures of your toys counts as "whining"?
Click to expand...

Agree with your point.

An arrest is an assault. An assault that is justifiable in most cases, but still an assault.
This man was unjustly assaulted by his own government.

A little complaining on his part is certainly understandable.

ETA: Went back and read the story again.... it's not stated if he was physically arrested or not when charges
were pressed. At the very least, he was unjustly prosecuted. What a ridiculous story.

.
 
spinach_chin said:
So do you reckon objecting to almost being thrown in jail for posting pictures of your toys counts as "whining"?
Click to expand...
No just pointing out the guy went straight for blaming "the left" even though he doesn't know jack shit about the laws surrounding Scotland and their historical context. Btw just because you think a law is left or right doesn't make it so as those points change over the years and each culture determines what is somehow conservative and what is liberal. A whiner is a whiner because they're not using logic they're being offended and shouting their feelings.
 
Semantics said:
No just pointing out the guy went straight for blaming "the left" even though he doesn't know jack shit about the laws surrounding Scotland and their historical context. Btw just because you think a law is left or right doesn't make it so as those points change over the years and each culture determines what is somehow conservative and what is liberal. A whiner is a whiner because they're not using logic they're being offended and shouting their feelings.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, my friend, but we'll have to agree to disagree.

In my mind, it's easy to see when something is influenced by modern progressivism, so calling it out as such is not knee-jerk, or whining in my book.

There's a nasty strain of authoritarianism running through today's leftists, and it's not hard to notice when you see it.

And just to clarify, I differentiate between "liberals" and "leftists", although I'm sure that modern liberals are kicking themselves for allowing leftism to flourish.
 
I'm a "leftist" and I think charging this guy was ridiculous.

Meanwhile, the president wants to pull FCC licenses from networks that hurt his feelings.

Maybe liberals aren't the only ones with a problem...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top