Lincoln: "Just because you call a tail "a leg", doesn't make it so."
Which by legal definition IS litter.
Not really. I read through the statute Woodpusher posted. (I assume it is the Alabama Statute.) The closest thing I saw that would cover your assertion is "foreign substance."
But a box with flowers doesn't even meet the definition of "substance." So no, it doesn't meet the definition of "litter."
He is judge not a counselor.
Human beings who are not pr*cks but who happen to be Judges too, have the authority to talk to a man and dismiss the charges. That he did not do so is a human failing, whether it is a legal failing or not.
He did. Nine times.
So now you don't understand "turn the other cheek."
Perhaps you should inform us all about how many times Jesus said to do it? I don't recall seeing a number in there. It seemed pretty open ended.
Alabama law specifically addresses littering on private property.
It isn't "litter". Till you get past that hurdle, you still don't have an argument.
LOL! Specifically stated that Ford is the plaintiff.
Does it? Because "Plaintiff" is used in civil cases, which would make more sense if this is regarded as a "private property" matter.
What you actually have here is some sort of unholy amalgamation of "private" and "public" property which exists in a state of quantum superposition being both "public" and "private" at the same time.
So the Prosecutor is the Plaintiff's attorney? I didn't know they could do that in their official role.
For over year?
Ah! I finally got you to admit that box had been there over a year. :)
There you go again. Seeing into the heart of someone based on the biased article from a liberal rag.
Speculation. Trying to empathize. Could be wrong, but that explanation makes more sense than others of which I could think.
Perhaps you missed the part where the called out for saying he wound never stop. The judge rightly convicted him.
“Ah! I finally got you to admit that box had been there over a year. :)”
I never said that. You are such a dishonest poster.
“Does it? Because “Plaintiff” is used in civil cases, which would make more sense if this is regarded as a “private property” matter.”
Again, your ignorance or dishonesty shows. This is a criminal complaint.
I know it is not ignorance since I posted to you the statute and you discussed it several times.
So again, you are a dishonest poster.