Encountered my first "Truther" today

deep44 said:
When you say "agreed to a sealed record", what exactly do you mean? In Florida, juvenile records are not automatically sealed. More importantly, this kid is still on probation - if I'm not mistaken, he can't even apply to have his record sealed right now.

Either way - sealed record or not - if you don't feel comfortable sharing a redacted court document, I completely understand & respect your decision.

Thankfully, we have an alternative to the court document: since this kid was initially arrested for a third-degree felony (as a juvenile), his original arrest report should already be available to the public, along with his name, address, and photo (see section 985.04(2), Florida Statutes).

Would you be willing to share a copy of the arrest report, with names/addresses/photos redacted (for your own privacy)?
Click to expand...

What do you think, deep? I'm thinking no.
 
deep44 said:
When you say "agreed to a sealed record", what exactly do you mean? In Florida, juvenile records are not automatically sealed. More importantly, this kid is still on probation - if I'm not mistaken, he can't even apply to have his record sealed right now.

Either way - sealed record or not - if you don't feel comfortable sharing a redacted court document, I completely understand & respect your decision.

Thankfully, we have an alternative to the court document: since this kid was initially arrested for a third-degree felony (as a juvenile), his original arrest report should already be available to the public, along with his name, address, and photo (see section 985.04(2), Florida Statutes).

Would you be willing to share a copy of the arrest report, with names/addresses/photos redacted (for your own privacy)?
Click to expand...

Sure, just as soon as my attorney gives me the redacted paperwork. I have a VERY good attorney!!


Juvie records ARE in fact regularly sealed in juvie cases in Florida. I say sealed in the fact that if a child is brought up on charges as an adult, his juvie record usually cannot be brought into evidence.
A juvie doesn't have to apply, you are thinking of expunged. (sp?)

Now, about this quotemine job that you have done, quite nice. Problem is, if you would have reaad the REST of the statue, you would have noticed this.

(7)(a) Records in the custody of the department regarding children are not open to inspection by the public. Such records may be inspected only upon order of the Secretary of Juvenile Justice or his or her authorized agent by persons who have sufficient reason and upon such conditions for their use and disposition as the secretary or his or her authorized agent deems proper. The information in such records may be disclosed only to other employees of the department who have a need therefor in order to perform their official duties; to other persons as authorized by rule of the department; and, upon request, to the Department of Corrections. The secretary or his or her authorized agent may permit properly qualified persons to inspect and make abstracts from records for statistical purposes under whatever conditions upon their use and disposition the secretary or his or her authorized agent deems proper, provided adequate assurances are given that children's names and other identifying information will not be disclosed by the applicant.

And here is another one you missed.

3) A law enforcement agency may release a copy of the juvenile offense report to the victim of the offense. However, information gained by the victim under this chapter, including the next of kin of a homicide victim, regarding any case handled in juvenile court, must not be revealed to any outside party, except as is reasonably necessary in pursuit of legal remedies.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...y_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0985/Sec04.HTM

So, you see here deep?? This is where you missed some things. If you just read the first paragraph of a law, it will not be clear as to certain stipulations. This is why you must ALWAYS read the WHOLE THING, not just one section.
 
Again a twoof shows poor reading comprehension skills while investigoogling. It always amazes me how badly most of their reading for comprehension skills are.
 
Isn't it though?? There for a minute, I thought he might be on to something, but then I read the rest of it.

FAIL!!
 
triforcharity said:
Juvie records ARE in fact regularly sealed in juvie cases in Florida. I say sealed in the fact that if a child is brought up on charges as an adult, his juvie record usually cannot be brought into evidence.
A juvie doesn't have to apply, you are thinking of expunged. (sp?)
Click to expand...


Like I said, juvenile records are not automatically sealed. Please see: http://www.djj.state.fl.us/AboutDJJ/faq.html (emphasis mine)
"(...) While juvenile records are considered confidential they are not automatically sealed and in many instances can be accessed by the general public. (...) Because the youth must petition the court to have records sealed or expunged and to ensure you meet qualifying criteria it is important that you seek legal counsel prior to beginning this process."​
triforcharity said:
Now, about this quotemine job that you have done, quite nice. Problem is, if you would have reaad the REST of the statue, you would have noticed this.

(.. snip.. )

So, you see here deep?? This is where you missed some things. If you just read the first paragraph of a law, it will not be clear as to certain stipulations. This is why you must ALWAYS read the WHOLE THING, not just one section.
Click to expand...


Tri - just to be clear, I've read that entire section, plus all of the direct references (the importance of doing so has been impressed upon me by LashL). That doesn't mean I'm always right - admittedly, I'm a relative beginner when it comes to statutory interpretation, but that has nothing to do with laziness.

Anyway - here's the relevant portion of 985.04(2), which is what I referenced in my previous message (emphasis mine):

(2) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, the name, photograph, address, and crime or arrest report of a child:

(a) Taken into custody if the child has been taken into custody by a law enforcement officer for a violation of law which, if committed by an adult, would be a felony; (...)

shall not be considered confidential and exempt from s. 119.07(1) solely because of the child's age.​
Since you cited several "other provisions from this chapter", I'm assuming you overlooked the bolded text?

You can also find the same information in various other documents (e.g., FAQs), such as: http://www.swfljac.org/Consequences.pdf (see #7 in the middle column of page two)
 
RedIbis said:
I think this is the most revealing post yet. Your story fits in nicely with what you think is stereotypical behavior, so you expected it to be accepted as fact.

The problem of course is that the details were not consistent, and as soon as you were asked to provide proof of your story, you were unable to do so. You even appeared to be contradicting yourself and basic judicial procedures here in Florida.

You were hoping that because something like this (although I've never heard of a story like this) happened before, it would be believed again. Where I would agree with you is that what you call evidence is indeed "ponderous", to say the least.
Click to expand...

Has it not occurred to you in all this time that you're picking on the wrong person, and in the wrong way?

I read the bit of this thread that got thrown into AAH, and there you justified your constant badgering of triforcharity by saying you objected to the fantasies of violence the story had generated, because they could be dangerous if they encouraged people to act on such things, so it would show up the violent sentiments that were expressed as based on faulty information if the story was proven false.

It's fair enough to have a concern like that, but apart from the fact that you're objecting to the story not because you have good grounds for suspecting it to be untrue, but simply because you have a dislike of the way people reacted to it, don't you realise you're fighting a lost cause? Even if the story is eventually proven false, it won't stop the people who fantasized about violence against Truthers doing it again the next time they hear about a Truther doing something objectionable. I mean, what will you have achieved if the story is eventually proven false, but a day or two later, someone links to a post on the Loose Change forum where a Truther's enjoying proclaiming death to all active debunkers after the revolution, and a string of people respond by saying they'd like to commit violence against that person? You'll realise you needn't have bothered making all those efforts to prove triforcharity's story false, because it turned out not to change the way people thought. If anything, your tactics are at risk of antagonising people and making them feel worse about Truthers.

I've been lurking on this thread a bit, and the more I do, the more it seems to me that you're coming across as a bully. Instead of continually badgering triforcharity to prove his story, it would have been far better tactics if you'd focused your attention on criticizing the responses the story got, like,

Spanning wrench. Occipital lobe. End of story.
Click to expand...

I would have run him down, and blamed it on the "joos"
Click to expand...

It was hardly triforcharity's fault that people responded to his story by saying things like that. You could legitimately have criticised him for joining in though when he said things like,

I like the idea of the spanning wrench, but I had my kids there. If it wasn't for them, things might be different.
Click to expand...

I think he lives in the next neighborhood over. Might have to have a crusie by there sometime when we are out at 3 am. Nothing says good morning like 120 db. of airhorn.

Truse me, I wanted him to try and take first swing. But, he, like most "truthers" are all talk, and no braun.
Click to expand...

You'd have been taking a more respectable approach, and several fair-minded people might have actually agreed with you, if rather than badgering him for evidence of his story, your response to both him and the others had been more like:

I object to the violent sentiments being expressed in response to this story. For one thing, you don't know all the facts. What if this man was high on some kind of drug at the time? What if he was mentally ill so his judgment was impaired? What if through no fault of his own he'd been taken in by reading inflammatory rhetoric that gave him a false impression of what had happened?

And don't forget that the Truther didn't actually get violent himself. Can you really wish violence on him, and still see yourselves as better than he is? When the "good guys" are the ones who want violence, what does that say about the "good guys"? Are they really better? Fiercely criticizing what he said is one thing. You could hardly be blamed for that. It sounds as if he deserves it. But really, how do you think wishing violence on this person who wasn't violent himself makes you look?
Click to expand...
 
RedIbis said:
Seeing how the debunkers love semantic arguments so much, since there was no proof for the story, it was fabricated, constructed, manufactured.
Click to expand...

Two points:

(a) This is a classic example of the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. There is no proof of fabricated stories, therefore the absence of proof is proof that the story was fabricated. All A are B, therefore all B are A. This ends up in you simply repeating your original lie.

To take a similar example, I've never provided proof to the forum that I have a doctorate in physics, despite having mentioned the fact. Would you like to make the claim that, because I've never provided any such proof, my doctorate in physics has been "exposed as a fabrication"?

(b) If anything advanced without proof is automatically "exposed as a fabrication", then you have repeatedly stated without proof on this forum that Silverstein lied about his phone call from the FDNY concerning the collapse of WTC7. Since you've never provided proof of this, can I now say that your claim that Silverstein lied is "exposed as a fabrication"?

Or could it be that there are not two, but three categories: proven true, proven false and unproven, and that the second and third are different?

RedIbis, you simply do not know how to think.

Dave
 
RedIbis said:
Seeing how the debunkers love semantic arguments so much, since there was no proof for the story, it was fabricated, constructed, manufactured. It was never substantiated, so it's nothing more than a fabrication posted on the internet. You'd think there would be a higher standard on a skeptic's forum.

Unless something specific develops, I'm done with this thread. The bottomfeeders can fight over the chum.
Click to expand...

See Red, this is where you're wrong and what's got everyone's attention. You're accusing Tri of being a liar for not being able to provide proof of the incident, yet here you are doing exactly what you accuse him of doing. You have no proof that the story is a lie and here you are stating that the story is, without a doubt, a fabrication. You are the one stating facts when you have no evidence to back it up.

Again, had you simply said "I think Tri's story is cow faeces" then I'm quite sure no one would have jumped on you like they have in this thread.

What I find amusing is that this is exactly how I see the people who believe in this conspiracy operate. They make claims that they cannot or will not provide evidence for and conclude that as evidence that they are correct. The unfortunate (and sometimes hilarious) thing is that they can't or won't see that isn't the way the real world works and why no one will ever take them seriously.
 
Dave Rogers said:
...Or could it be that there are not two, but three categories: proven true, proven false and unproven, and that the second and third are different?...
Click to expand...
That third category - unproven - is often overlooked. I used it to rebut Tony Sz's claim that he had falsified the NIST Col 79 walk-off hypothesis.

All the opponents of Tony were enjoying themselves proving - or trying to prove - that his maths was wrong - whilst accepting his context assumptions. The context assumptions were almost certainly wrong - put simply in a fire ravaged building where one structural component was subject to heat affected expansion contraction motions I reckon it is crazy to assume that adjacent members had not been heated and had not moved at all. But "reckon it is crazy" falls short of proof.

Since Tony's claim rested on the crazy assumption his claim was "not proven". BUT no way could I prove that the other members had not moved. So I could not prove him wrong - merely that his claim was not "made out" -- "not proven".

It was far too subtle for the masses and I got ignored...

...again.

My lot in life. I should learn not to play smartarse :o
 
NoahFence said:
That prick duped a lot of people on here.
Click to expand...

NoahFence said:
Tri got banned, and lied about being a firefighter at ground zero, happily accepting accolades for his (her?) heroism and sympathy for the profound loss he didn't actually suffer.
Click to expand...

Well, hang on a minute. Do we know that triforcharity lied about being a firefighter at ground zero? Or even about this incident?

It's a long thread and I can see that a lot of accusations have been made but I don't see anything conclusive.
 
angrysoba said:
Well, hang on a minute. Do we know that triforcharity lied about being a firefighter at ground zero? Or even about this incident?

It's a long thread and I can see that a lot of accusations have been made but I don't see anything conclusive.
Click to expand...

Check the thread in community.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom