Posted on 06/13/2022 7:53:40 AM PDT by grundle
Sympathetic. I would understand the intent and feeling behind it even if I thought they were garish and ugly.
"Obnoxious" is in the eye of the beholder.
Another problem I see with many people throughout my life is that they believe that everyone else thinks exactly like they do, and what is "obvious" to them should be obvious to everyone else.
I've seen people embrace crap like that stuff the guy put on the grave and they think it's quite appropriate on graves. Indeed, the guy probably bought it from a supplier of grave decorations and clearly the seller doesn't think it's "obnoxious." I bet they sell a lot of those.
I think what the father really regards as obnoxious is the fiance, and this isn't about the crap, but is instead about the guy he didn't want his daughter to be with.
And note how you attempt to slant the conversation by using pejoratives that are *YOUR* view, and not objectively based.
You said "obnoxious" in the assumption that everyone else would see it the same way. Then you say "admirer" to minimize the fact that this was the girls' fiance meaning her would be husband, meaning the man she agreed to spend her life with.
You are "othering" him in order to make your argument more compelling. This is what people do when their actual argument isn't that strong.
“If I recall correctly, you were very happy that that guy in Texas shot the unarmed man for trying to get a visit with his kid.”
Why do you lie?
Ok. Thank you for this info. That helps.
He knew a complaint had been filed.
“I’ve seen people embrace crap like that stuff the guy put on the grave and they think it’s quite appropriate on graves.”
That is why cemeteries have rules and why people buy lots in those cemeteries.
You are doing it again. I have said nothing to disrespect the owner of this website, but you are slanting the conversation to make it appear as though I had.
Is your argument not strong enough on it's own?
And you wish judges didn’t follow the law in making their decisions!
Clearly, you and I have a different understanding of what "THE LAW" should mean.
Is that stuff "litter"? Which to normal people means trash thrown down with no concern for it.
That grave decoration doesn't meet the definition of "litter" in my opinion, so therefore the Judge is *NOT* following the law.
Judge in this case: McLaughlin said he has to “rule on the law and facts”
Which means "Whatever urge I happen to have at the moment."
Objective facts and law have nothing to do with it.
Do you really believe the State Legislature created this law to deal with grave memorial stuff?
Well I think a lot of grave memorial stuff is tacky, and if we just go through the cemetery and toss out everything that *I* consider tacky, it would go way beyond just that one grave.
They are misusing a law in order to deal with a situation that there probably isn't an actual law written to cover.
So don't you believe in the law? Or just when it decides something you like?
Honestly, the information on this is so spotty I can’t form a solid opinion on it one way or another. Personally, I don’t respect grave sites because the person is long gone. If I did, I might object to that monstrosity, but not file charges. But again, since I would never visit the grave site, I’d not care what the guy did to it.
She was fetching
Sad
Wonder what’s going entire story
Why do you lie?
You are going to have to help me here. As I have not actually "lied" about anything, you are going to have to explain what part of what I said that you think is a "lie."
At the worst, I just confused you with someone else, and this could be true because my memory is getting worse, but I assure you there were a lot of people who were very pleased that the one man shot another with a rifle when the unarmed man was just trying to visit his kid.
So do you recall the incident, or did you not participate in the discussion on those threads?
Who’s property is the grave site, the plot?
And this woman’s father is a minister, obviously does believe what he preaches. Must have hated the guy even before. How sad, wonder how this ministers congregation feels about this?
They aren't "rules" if they are inconsistently applied. I've *SEEN* stuff like that at cemeteries. I should not be surprised if we went to *that* cemetery and found the exact same stuff on one or more of the graves in it.
If it's the tacky display, then cemeteries all over the country are guilty of allowing that stuff to stay.
So let me ask you this. If the *FATHER* put that stuff on the grave, would the cemetery file a charge against *HIM* for "littering"?
“I have said nothing to disrespect the owner of this website,”
Your cussing on his site is disrespectful.
To you maybe, but not to that poor guy.
Let me ask you this. If the *FATHER* put that stuff on his daughter's grave, would it still be "littering"? Would the city object to it?
“Maybe the potential son-in-law was a loser, and not the best match - we don’t know. But that doesn’t matter now, because the daughter is dead. Why carry the vindictiveness?”
It is more than vindictiveness, it’s contractual law also.
It is against the law to place items on a gravesite in Alabama unless it is cleared by the family of the deceased. The Hagans family never gave Ford the okay to place anything, let alone numerous boxes that were removed by the Hagan family.
According to the arrest warrant, the fiancé, Winchester Hagans, left objects at the grave of Ford’s daughter without permission after being warned repeatedly to stop.
Sari Card, an Administrative Assistant with Parks and Recreation in Auburn, she had more than one conversation with Hagans in which she informed him Ford did not wish to have the boxes on the gravesite. “I informed him that Mr. Ford did not want him to continue to put the boxes out there, that I thought that he was going to take legal action because that’s what he had discussed with me, and that if he continued, he might have him arrested,” Card said.
According to Card, Hagans replied that “he didn’t care” and that he would continue to place boxes at the site every time they were removed.
Hagans previously told the Washington Post that he put the flower box on the grave because there was no headstone. However, Ford provided photos of the different boxes, which showed them placed directly above the headstone, which was present in every image.
And the final decision by the court found Hagans guilty of one count of criminal littering and fined him $50 plus $251 in court costs. They could have got him for a bunch more. So only $50 of the fine went to the family who probably spent more than that cleaning up the unwanted boxes and his jail sentenced was suspended if he stayed within the law.
The 30-day jail sentence accompanying the charge was suspended by McLaughlin so long as Hagans does not place any more boxes on the grave. I’d say they just wanted to be left alone and Hagans was pushing an unwanted issue.
Judge McLaughlin found Hagans guilty, stating that the prosecution’s case was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. “I don’t get paid to have emotions or to rule on what’s right, or what’s nice, or what’s moral, or what’s Christian,” McLaughlin said. “I’m paid to rule on the law and the facts. And when you take all the emotion out of it, and you get off Facebook and keyboard warriors, and all that, what you wind up with is a deed for Dr. Ford.
“You’ve got a deed that says ‘no boxes.’ You’ve got a gentleman who’s been told ‘no boxes’ by a city lawyer in uncontroverted testimony. You’ve got a gentleman who says – and this is frankly where I lose my patience – ‘I don’t care what the rules are and what the law says, I’m going to do what I want.’ Well, he’s not. It’s a clear case of a violation of this deed, and a violation of the littering statute.”
Clearly put.
Wy69
Sympathy is a for more precious emotional commodity for your self awareness than your vaunted sense of graves fashion
This is me too. I was taught to believe the body is simply the vessel for the soul, and when it is cast off, it is simply a husk and the person who inhabited it has gone up to heaven and they care not about their earthly body.
“You are going to have to help me here. As I have not actually “lied” about anything, you are going to have to explain what part of what I said that you think is a “lie.””
” ... you were very happy that that guy in Texas shot the unarmed man for trying to get a visit with his kid.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.