Boy?
Nope. That's just you straw manning again.
My first argument is "that's not litter".
My Second Argument is "The Judge should have talked to the man and dismissed the case."
My Third Argument is "A Pastor should have turned the other cheek."
I will point out that a charge of "litter" isn't a private property argument.
I will agree that the legal system will recognize the father as the owner of the property, but the charge isn't trespassing, it's "litter", and as near as I can tell the plaintiff is the City.
The boy feels he has some right to her memory, and I cannot fault him for feeling that way. This is likely his mechanism for grieving.
Or it was. I think once he realized the father was trying to hurt him, it became a pissing contest.
He will ultimately win it you know. The father will likely die before him, and with no one to complain, he can put that stuff back on the grave again.
“Nope. That’s just you straw manning again.”
Nope. Reality.
“My first argument is “that’s not litter”.”
Which by legal definition IS litter.
“My Second Argument is “The Judge should have talked to the man and dismissed the case.”
He is judge not a counselor.
“My Third Argument is “A Pastor should have turned the other cheek.””
He did. Nine times.
“I will point out that a charge of “litter” isn’t a private property argument.”.
Alabama law specifically addresses littering on private property.
“I will agree that the legal system will recognize the father as the owner of the property, but the charge isn’t trespassing, it’s “litter”, and as near as I can tell the plaintiff is the City.”
LOL! Specifically stated that Ford is the plaintiff.
“The boy feels he has some right to her memory, and I cannot fault him for feeling that way. This is likely his mechanism for grieving”
For over year?
“Or it was. I think once he realized the father was trying to hurt him,”
There you go again. Seeing into the heart of someone based on the biased article from a liberal rag.
Boy?