LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATE SPITS IN FACE OF TALK SHOW HOST ON THE AIR

DFU listening to KABC in Los Angeles | 9-8-02 | Doug from Upland

[doug from upland]

The evening started innocently enough for Brian Whitman, Sunday evening talk show host on KABC in Los Angeles.

He had on his show four minor candidates running for governor of California. Three were on the phone and the fourth, Libertarian candidate Gary Copeland, was in studio.

The conversation eventually turned to illegal immigration. Copeland did not like Whitman's position and called him a racist. Although Whitman kept trying to answer, Copeland kept talking over him and would not let him speak.

Just as Whitman puts callers in "timeout" on his show when they won't let him have his say, he told the engineer to cut off Copeland's microphone. Copeland became incensed and started packing his things to leave the studio.

Then, in great FReeper tradition, Whitman told Copeland not to let the door hit his ass on the way out. He also called Copeland a lunatic.

Then the rain came. Copeland walked over to Whitman and spit in his face. Whitman couldn't believe it. Two others on the KABC staff couldn't believe it.

Whitman had the station call the police and is considering filing assault charges.

Poor Copeland. He may no longer be the Libertarian candidate for governor. An official high ranking representative of the party called in to Whitman and told him that Copeland would be receiving no more backing and they were going to see what they could do to take him off the ballot.

Now that was classic talk radio. The unbelievable happened. A candidate for governor actually showed himself to be a bigger jackass than Gray Davis. Davis has spit on the law but never on Whitman, at least not yet. Brian, get him in studio.

[A CA Guy]

For people who are quiet, there is no issue, after all, who would know.
For folks to get busted doing drugs, distributing drugs or developing drugs, they have to be less than quiet, so it's their own fault in that regard as well.
Same thing.

[tpaine]

It's immaterial to the point, CJ.
The 'Prohibition' of property is unconstitutional, whether local, state, or federal.

[Cultural Jihad]

It's immaterial to the point, CJ.

Not at all. You were the one who wrongly characterised simple marijuana possession as a 'felony.' In point of fact it is not a felony in California nor an arrestable offense, but a misdemeanor subject to a hundred dollar fine.

[Cultural Jihad]

The 'Prohibition' of property is unconstitutional, whether local, state, or federal.

That famous melodious group "Banned in Boston"
played live before the Continental Congress
[Intaglio etching courtesy of LP Historical Revisionism, Inc]

[tpaine]

Immaterial to a
felon convicted in Calif on federal charges of 'possession' under an unconstitutional law.

You are advocating unconstitutional actions by ALL levels of government, CJ. Can you admit it? -- Are you aware that Roscoe does not argue the point anymore?

[tpaine]

Your inanity makes my point. - Thanks.

[Cultural Jihad]

Immaterial to a felon convicted in Calif on federal charges of 'possession' under an unconstitutional law.

Name one such person in California who was ever convicted of a felony for an ounce or less of marijuana on their own property, say, within the last 30 years. We can wait all week if need be.

[Cultural Jihad]

[[ crickets ]]

[Cultural Jihad]

So you are claiming that spitting in another person's face is perfectly Constitutional?

[Kevin Curry]

You could always move to a third world facist country where any immoral action is subject to stoning

I thought getting stoned was what you libertarians were all about.

[tpaine]

Wait all year, CJ. I'm not gonna play the 'cite' game.
The fact remains.
You support unconstitutional prohibitions on 'dangerous' property. These prohibitory type laws are tearing this country apart.
- Your same socialistic advocacies are tearing free republic apart.
As JR once wrote:

Free Republic is a place for people to discuss our common goals regarding the restoration of our constitutionally limited republican form of government. If people have other agendas for FR, I really wish they would take them elsewhere.
Thanks, Jim
226 posted on 2/7/02 4:01 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson

[Cultural Jihad]

Wait all year, CJ. I'm not gonna play the 'cite' game.

Little wonder when there are no such cites to be cited. Thanks for admitting you were using hyperbole and dissembling.

[tpaine]

You are advocating unconstitutional actions by ALL levels of government, CJ. Can you admit it?


"So you are claiming that spitting in another person's face is perfectly Constitutional?" CJ

-- You have the option of taking me to court to prove that I'm "spitting in another person's face", CJ. We'll let the jury decide if it's "perfectly Constitutional".

[Cultural Jihad]

So according to the looneytarians, assault becomes a civil matter. Interesting, but vetoed.

[tpaine]

Whatever.
Imagine, if you must, that 'cites' have any bearing on your conduct here at FR. You reject our constitutional principles with every WOD advocating post, and with every hate rant at your 'fellow' freepers.

[Cultural Jihad]

You can't back up your allegation of felony law, so you decide to ignore your own statement, too. Welcome to the club, tpaine.

[tpaine]

Ignore what statement?

[Cultural Jihad]

Which statement? Why, this statement of yours:

Immaterial to a felon convicted in Calif on federal charges of 'possession' under an unconstitutional law.

People who pay a hundred dollar fine are not called "felons." Otherwise, we'd have "felonious jaywalkers," or "felonious double-parkers," or "felonious sidewalk-spitters."

[tpaine]

~ Federal~ charges of
'possession' were felonies, last time I heard CJ. You have new info? Let me know sometime in the next year or two, when someone might care.

The facts remain, you advocate a war on drugs, -- in reality, -- a war on the constitution, and the people of the U.S.A.

"There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that authorizes the federal government to wage war against the citizens of the United States, no matter how well-meaning the intent. The Bill of Rights means just as much today, as it did on the day it was written. And its protections are just as valid and just as important to freedom today, as they were to our Founders two hundred years ago. The danger of the drug war is that it erodes away those rights. Once the fourth amendment is meaningless, it's just that much easier to erode away the first and then the second, etc. Soon we'll have no rights at all. " Jim Robinson, 5/9/01

[Cultural Jihad]

~ Federal~ charges of 'possession' were felonies, last time I heard CJ. You have new info?

Get with the times, tp. The decriminalization of simple marijuana possession in California happened 29 years ago. In fact, no amount of possession in California constitutes a felony, but a misdemeanor.

---

Possession of 28.5 grams or less of marijuana is not an arrestable offense. As long as the offender can provide sufficient identification and promises to appear in court, the officer will not arrest the offender. Upon conviction of the misdemeanor charge the offender is subject to a fine of $100. Possession of greater than 28.5 grams is punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $500.

---

		Incarceration	Fine
Possession
28.5 g or less	misdemeanor	none	$100
More than 28.5 g	misdemeanor	6 months	$500
28.5 g or less on school grounds while school open	misdemeanor	10 days	$500
More than 28.5 g on school grounds while school open	misdemeanor	6 months	$500
Cultivation
Any amount (exception for patients or caregivers)	felony	16 months
Sale
Gift of less than 28.5 g	misdemeanor	none	$100
Any amount	felony	2 -4 years	none
Sale to minor under 21	felony	3 - 5 years	none