>> ^messenger:

I gotta say, I don't see what the problem is. The only way this private event has anything to do with government is that the guy who is hosting it happens to be a U.S. senator. What's that got to do with separation of church and state? How does it violate anybody's rights?


I will take your message to the next level. I think the balance has tipped. Whereas once atheists were told to "shut the fuck up or else" we are now telling Christians the same. Lawsuit? Really.

Is the governor allowed to attend a funeral if he holds a prayer there? "But it's rallying people." And?

It is not the "Segregation of church and state." Nor is it the "Destruction of church from anything related to state."

I don't think judges should have bibles in their courtroom. But if the President wants to voluntarily place his hand on a bible, so fucking be it! If a teacher wants to hold prayer on the sidewalk before school starts, so be it. If he/she wants to hold it in school, with everyone present, fuck no. There are huge differences that whinny people ignore.

Is Rick Perry a douche? Of course. But I will defend the Sift's rights to free atheist speak, and I will defend this douche his right to speak.

He is an American citizen, and not an English native speaker. No matter how long he spends in the country (with no official language), he will never achieve native speaker level. Never. He wants to deliver his deposition (or whatever) accurately, which he knows he can only do in Spanish. He isn't participating in a conversation with friendly responsive interlocutor who will ensure that he was properly understood, so he's doing it in Spanish with the help of a native speaking interpreter.

Also, the fact that he brought an interpreter speaks to how important accurate communication is to him. It's the same with fully fluent but non-native speakers in courtrooms, who often use interpreters. No matter how high my level of another language is, I would never want to use any language but English for something official like this.

Further, some people simply cannot learn second languages well, no matter how long they work at it. I'm a teacher of English as a second language, and though it's rare, I have seen several students who simply cannot learn the language no matter how hard they study. One highly intelligent friend of mine has been in full-time English language classes for three years (over 3000 hours) while living in an English speaking country, but is only comfortable with basic "How-are-you-my-name-is" type of conversations. He just has a block, and if he ever wants to give a deposition in Canada, he's going to have to do it through an interpreter.

He's not an asshole.

This is a huge to do about nothing. There's stairs like that all over the world. the difference here is that they lead right to the courtroom of a clearly assertive and stern, female, judge.

I'm offended when she assumes that men specifically designed it just to look up women's skirts. Perhaps, but fat chance. It's just more American paranoia about sex and litigation.

Big deal. Down vote.

The rest of that answer is quite important: "You can ask if you are free to leave. If they say no, you have to assume they have a reasonable suspicion. If you feel they don't, then the remedy would be to file a complaint. The street is not the place to challenge an officer, it should be done in the courtroom."

They can detain you for a little while without arresting you or charging you or explaining anything. But the longer they detain you without cause, the more they are opening themselves up to a harassment lawsuit. So stay calm, don't answer any questions you don't feel like answering, and occasionally ask if you are free to go. And be happy, because the longer they hold you without cause, the deeper hole they are digging for themselves. Be sure to write down their names and badge numbers.

To be fair, that's not really a courtroom. It's damn entertaining and I watch JJ often but it's not really a courtroom.

Does the defense have anything to say?

"Waaarrglabaarrglblgarrlglalgale!"
*30 murlocs aggro*

>> ^flechette:

I would hate to be up against murlocs in a courtroom setting.
>> ^gwiz665:
I'll hire that law firm any day!

I would hate to be up against murlocs in a courtroom setting.
>> ^gwiz665:

I'll hire that law firm any day!

Imagine yourself a lawyer sitting in a quiet courtroom like you've done hundreds of times before, working through all the boring paperwork for hours at a time etc. Suddenly a man faceplants from a balcony not 50 feet from where you are. Some would just sit there nonplussed because something that far out of your expectations takes time to register.

>> ^COriolanus:

Therefore, no guns in the courtroom! (Homeland Security Logic)


I would go with sealed courtroom, prisoner locked to chair. Something along those lines...

Therefore, no guns in the courtroom! (Homeland Security Logic)

Tags for this video have been changed from 'wkuk, courtroom, stripper, whitest, kids, you, know, sugar, ponyberry' to 'wkuk, courtroom, stripper, whitest kids u know, sugar, ponyberry' - edited by kronosposeidon

Once inside the building, they barricaded themselves in and set to work. Equipment used to make weapon components were trashed and computers, filing cabinets and office furnishings were thrown out of the windows. Once they were done they calmly waited for the police to arrest them. Two activists who supported them outside the factory gates were also on trial. All of the defendants have argued that what they did was not only morally necessary but crucially that it was legal. U.K law allows the commission of damage of property to prevent greater crimes.

Two of the accused, Simon Levin and Chris Osmond have extensive experience of working in Palestine with the International Solidarity Movement. Chris Osmond told the court that ’the humanitarian disaster unfolding in Gaza at that time meant it was imperative to act’. He cited the words of Rachel Corrie, the U.S activist who was killed by an IDF bulldozer in Rafah, as an inspiration. The court heard a passage of Corrie’s diary ’I’m witnessing this chronic insidious genocide and I’m really scared, this has to stop, I think it is a good idea idea for all of us to drop everything and devote our lives to making this stop’.

During the trial the court heard not only from the defendants themselves but from Sharyn Lock, who was an international human rights volunteer in Gaza during Cast Lead. She was inside Al-Quds hospital in Gaza City when it was attacked with white phosphorus. She concluded her evidence by saying that she had no doubt that those who armed the Israeli Air Force ’had the blood of children on their hands’. The jury saw footage of the air attacks on the UNWRA compounds where civilians were sheltering and have been given an edited version of the Goldstone report.

Recently elected member of Parliament for Brighton Pavilion, Caroline Lucas also gave evidence supporting the decommssioners, saying that the democratic process ’had been exhausted’ as far as the factory was concerned.

On January the 17th 2009 the bombs had already fallen relentlessly on Gaza for three weeks. Massive, passionate demonstrations and pickets had been held in many cities around the country and the world in protest against Israel’s war crimes, but to no avail. A growing sense of helplessness was grabbing hold of the movement as the Palestinian body count stood at over 1400 and counting. 300 of the dead were children. It was against this background that the “citizen’s decommissioning” of EDO MBM/ITT took place.

EDO/ITT is an arms manufacturer, based in Brighton since 1946. They were acquired along with the rest of EDO Corporation by the multinational arms conglomerate ITT in December 2007. Their primary business is the manufacture of weapons systems such as bomb release mechanisms and bomb racks. This includes crucially the manufacture of the VER-2 Zero Retention Force Arming Unit for the Israeli Air Force’s F16 war planes.

Over the years, EDO have consistently denied supplying Israel, and despite over fifty court cases campaigners were not able to properly expose the links between the factory and the IAF. However the serious nature of the charges against the seven (the factory sustained nearly £200,000 of damage and may not have recommenced production for weeks) means that for the first time courts took the argument that EDOs business is fundamentally illegal very seriously.

Paul Hills, the Managing Director of EDO MBM, spent his five days on the witness stand last week being confronted with all the evidence gathered by campaigners over the years –evidence which exposes a complex network of collaboration between British, American and Israeli arms companies and the way in which their deals are clouded in secrecy. The Decommissioners were able to present Mr Hills, for the first time, with a dossier of evidence showing how EDO MBM use a front company in the U.S.A to indirectly supply components for the F 16 to Israel. Under U.K law the supply of weapons components that might be used in the Occupied Territories is actually a crime.

After hearing Hills’ explanations of his company’s business practices, Judge George Bathurst-Norman said that, despite Hill’s denials of dealing with Israel, it was clear that their was enough evidence to justify a genuinely held belief they did. He also offered the opinion that End User Certificates required for arms export licences were “ not worth the paper they are written on” as they can be easily manipulated.

There is a history of juries in British courts finding anti-war activists not guilty when they attack machinery used in war crimes. In 1996 four women from Trident Ploughshares decommissioned a Hawk jet that was about to be shipped to Indonesia – they were found not guilty. In 2008 the Raytheon 9, who damaged a factory in Derry supplying weapons to Israel during the 2006 Lebanon war, were acquitted by a jury and only two weeks ago a group of nine women carrying out a similar action at Raytheon during the Gaza attacks were also found not guilty by an unanimous jury.

On Friday, the jury found Simon Levin, Tom Woodhead, Ornella Saibene, Bob Nicholls, Harvey Tadman, Elijah Smith and Chris Osmond not guilty of “Conspiracy to Cause Criminal damage” by unanimous verdict in Hove Crown Court.

Chris Osmond said “This action was taken because of EDO MBMs illegal supply of weapons to the Israeli military. We brought the suffering of ordinary Palestinians into a British courtroom and confronted with the evidence they took the brave decision to find that our actions were justified.”

The decommissioners’ stance made it clear to companies like EDO that they can no longer count on not being held to account for their actions. There are now a growing number of people in the international community who are willing to risk their own liberty to stand up for the people of Gaza and to challenge Israel’s war crimes through whatever means possible.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
^Joe, your reply missed the point. The system looks after itself. Of course the courts are going to rule with local law enforcement authorities, that has a long tradition. The courts also approved separate but equal facilities, then reversed their decision years later. Their decisions aren't always entirely based in legal precedent, but in the predominate social norms of the time. I was talking about the plain and simple fact that the intractable difference in the phrasing of the constitution and the foundation of these types of laws. Of course these laws exist, I already said that. What concerns me is the erosion of our base of freedom.
A man with a sign does nothing to impede movement on the sidewalks away way. This is a technicality, but a valid one. An ordinance that doesn't take that into consideration first thing sounds like a thing made to stop protests first, and keep the sidewalks clear second.



No, you are missing the point and in this rare circumstance, I agree with someone 100%. I know the example I am about to give will be extreme, however, even if extreme, by your reasoning, congress could make NO LAW every prohibiting it...

A man rapes a random woman/passerby because he wants to protest women's rights. Per the NO LAW, ever, clause you mention, this would be a lawful act. Even the laws on the books about rape could not prohibit this man from his wrong doing because, since he is protesting and using free speach, he is immune from prosecution.

Like I said, that example is extreme. However, the law, strictly read, is extreme as well. So there SHOULD be SOME leeway in there. You need a permit? The state cannot discriminate so apply for one and it will be granted. This does not, in anyway, stop a protest by a concerned, non-lazy citizen...

Also, who are these tards to ask for ID, say it is required, and not give their own info? Is it required? Because I don't think it is required of rent-a-cops or other private sectors... I know Florida's courtroom security is run by a private corporation...

Sometimes cameras are allowed. Sometimes they're not. It's at the judge's discretion, I believe. If you'll recall, the entire OJ Simpson case was televised.>> ^BoneRemake:

So hey, I thought cameras where not allowed in courtrooms ? or is that while the case is going on ? that is what was explained to me as for all the drawings you see people doing in court.

So hey, I thought cameras where not allowed in courtrooms ? or is that while the case is going on ? that is what was explained to me as for all the drawings you see people doing in court.