Michigan Residents Could Face 5-Years Prison, $10,000 Fine for Using Wrong Pronouns

[QP!]

This new "law" in Michigan has nothing to do with the one you're discussing... if you enable Will Thomas to claim that he feels threatened or terrorized by a person or group of persons who refuse to recognize him as a female, call him she or her, and let him swim in a female race who knows what he'll claim to feel... This has to be one of the most ridiculous pieces of legislation I've ever seen... who in the world wrote this let alone vote for it...

if you allow anyone to carry a gun and they can shoot someone based on what they FEEL is a threat, who knows who they will shoot over what stupid claimed threat.

Do you agree, and would see people's gun rights serious curtailed?

 

[Jarod]

When they find out about this bill, they just might....
People are complaining about it now...which is why they post and proclaim "identifying pronouns" these days...

Ugh, you are an idiot.

 

[TOP]

if you allow anyone to carry a gun and they can shoot someone based on what they FEEL is a threat, who knows who they will shoot over what stupid claimed threat.

Do you agree, and would see people's gun rights serious curtailed?

That's completely different than the law that is in discussion... as far as gun rights go depends on what you mean as "curtailed". I would never agree to the statement that "anyone" should be allowed to carry a gun.. The act of shooting someone in self-defense depends on the individual circumstance... if someone has received threats in the past about being harmed on their property I would think that they have a perfect right to defend themselves... no one should have to live in fear on their own property... so something that may not make you feel threatened may make another person feel extremely threatened... misgendering a person is a completely different thing... I'm sure you will agree..

 

[TOP]

Ugh, you are an idiot.

Whoever wrote that bill is an idiot... I noticed you couldn't refute what I posted...

 

[Jarod]

Whoever wrote that bill is an idiot... I noticed you couldn't refute what I posted...

It’s possible that some stupid person will complain, the law does not criminalize misgendering, no prosecutor would take such a case, all judges would dismiss it and no jury would convict.

 

[QP!]

That's completely different than the law that is in discussion... as far as gun rights go depends on what you mean as "curtailed". I would never agree to the statement that "anyone" should be allowed to carry a gun.. The act of shooting someone in self-defense depends on the individual circumstance... if someone has received threats in the past about being harmed on their property I would think that they have a perfect right to defend themselves... no one should have to live in fear on their own property... so something that may not make you feel threatened may make another person feel extremely threatened... misgendering a person is a completely different thing... I'm sure you will agree..

What specifically makes it different?

We just had a person shoot a person for simply ringing their doorbell, as they claim castle doctrine and that they felt a threat.

So explain what makes the FEELING different?

 

[TOP]

What specifically makes it different?

We just had a person shoot a person for simply ringing their doorbell, as they claim castle doctrine and that they felt a threat.

So explain what makes the FEELING different?

We would need to understand why they feel threatened in their home... there could be a number of explanations... I believe I already mentioned previous threats or problems... if you can come up with a comparable situation when it comes to misgendering I'll listen...

 

[Earl]

This new "law" in Michigan has nothing to do with the one you're discussing... if you enable Will Thomas to claim that he feels threatened or terrorized by a person or group of persons who refuse to recognize him as a female, call him she or her, and let him swim in a female race who knows what he'll claim to feel... This has to be one of the most ridiculous pieces of legislation I've ever seen... who in the world wrote this let alone vote for it...

It's DOA at the Appellate level, TOP.

"Misgendering" is horse mierda.

A man who claims to be a woman is still a biological man and vice versa.

 

[TOP]

It's DOA at the Appellate level, TOP.

"Misgendering" is horse mierda.

A man who claims to be a woman is still a biological man and vice versa.

Indeed... and that being said have you been watching a little baseball?

 

[QP!]

We would need to understand why they feel threatened in their home... there could be a number of explanations... I believe I already mentioned previous threats or problems... if you can come up with a comparable situation when it comes to misgendering I'll listen...

Which is EXACTLY what is called the 'reasonable person test'. It is NOT enough that the person shooting someone FEELS threatened. They can FEEL threatened but as you say if we look at 'WHY they feel threatened' and it does not pass the 'reasonable person test' they will still be charged and found guilty of a crime. Just 'FEELING' threatened is NOT ENOUGH>

That is EXACTLY the same with regards to any LGTBQ+ person claiming threat. What they FEEL alone does not make it a crime. Any jury will have to look at and "understand why they feel threatened", using your exact words. "There could be a number of explanations" again, using your words.

And in BOTH cases, if the jury putting the claim of 'FEELING THREATENED' does not agree then the claim will not work.


So these situations are EXACTLY THE SAME, in terms of just 'FEELING" something is wrong or a threat, making it so.

 

[TOP]

It’s possible that some stupid person will complain, the law does not criminalize misgendering, no prosecutor would take such a case, all judges would dismiss it and no jury would convict.

so what does it criminalize?

 

[TOP]

Which is EXACTLY what is called the 'reasonable person test'. It is NOT enough that the person shooting someone FEELS threatened. They can FEEL threatened but as you say if we look at 'WHY they feel threatened' and it does not pass the 'reasonable person test' they will still be charged and found guilty of a crime. Just 'FEELING' threatened is NOT ENOUGH>

That is EXACTLY the same with regards to any LGTBQ+ person claiming threat. What they FEEL alone does not make it a crime. Any jury will have to look at and "understand why they feel threatened", using your exact words. "There could be a number of explanations" again, using your words.

And in BOTH cases, if the jury putting the claim of 'FEELING THREATENED' does not agree then the claim will not work.


So these situations are EXACTLY THE SAME, in terms of just 'FEELING" something is wrong or a threat, making it so.

So what's the purpose of this new "law"? Give me an example of what would be a reason to convict... for the prison time and fine to be imposed...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Isn't that the whole basis of all those stupid "stand your ground" laws?

It took nearly a week, and THIS is the best the fascist hate sites that do your thinking for you could come up with?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Misgendering is not causing a person to feel terrorized frightened or threatened. You are such a stupid liar.

In fact, that is the reason why the Michigan Bundestag added ""gender identity or expression"

 

[QP!]

So what's the purpose of this new "law"? Give me an example of what would be a reason to convict... for the prison time and fine to be imposed...

The purpose is the same as the one that allows someone to shoot in self defense in INDEED they face a real threat, that a jury would agree passes the 'reasonable person' test.


It is not what you or I think is a good reason for the person to shoot in self defense. What matters is whether or not a jury will agree. There are some defensible and good reasons for a person to shoot someone on their property and some that are not defensible, even a person says 'I FELT threatened'.

So the purpose of this law is to ALLOW JURIES to look at instances where an LGBTQ+ person feels they are at genuine threat, and to apply the 'reasonable person' test, to see if they, they jury, feel it is a genuine threat or not.

If the jury says no, just as with a self defense claim, then it will not apply.

So all the BS in this thread about this law making 'misgendering' someone a convictable crime as long as the person just says 'I FELT threatened', would be like saying 'self defense laws' and 'castle doctrine' mean a person can shoot the postal delivery person, if they say 'I FELT threatened'.

Neither are true or accurate and just the type of things gun haters and castle doctrine haters, and LGTBQ+ haters would say, to make shit up that is not accurate or true.

 

[TOP]

The purpose is the same as the one that allows someone to shoot in self defense in INDEED they face a real threat, that a jury would agree passes the 'reasonable person' test.


It is not what you or I think is a good reason for the person to shoot in self defense. What matters is whether or not a jury will agree. There are some defensible and good reasons for a person to shoot someone on their property and some that are not defensible, even a person says 'I FELT threatened'.

So the purpose of this law is to ALLOW JURIES to look at instances where an LGBTQ+ person feels they are at genuine threat, and to apply the 'reasonable person' test, to see if they, they jury, feel it is a genuine threat or not.

If the jury says no, just as with a self defense claim, then it will not apply.

So all the BS in this thread about this law making 'misgendering' someone a convictable crime as long as the person just says 'I FELT threatened', would be like saying 'self defense laws' and 'castle doctrine' mean a person can shoot the postal delivery person, if they say 'I FELT threatened'.

Neither are true or accurate and just the type of things gun haters and castle doctrine haters, and LGTBQ+ haters would say, to make shit up that is not accurate or true.

What is the potential crime?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ugh, you are an idiot.

You're such a vacuous troll.

Zero substance, ever. Just like Owl.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The purpose is the same as the one that allows someone to shoot in self defense in INDEED they face a real threat, that a jury would agree passes the 'reasonable person' test.


It is not what you or I think is a good reason for the person to shoot in self defense. What matters is whether or not a jury will agree. There are some defensible and good reasons for a person to shoot someone on their property and some that are not defensible, even a person says 'I FELT threatened'.

So the purpose of this law is to ALLOW JURIES to look at instances where an LGBTQ+ person feels they are at genuine threat, and to apply the 'reasonable person' test, to see if they, they jury, feel it is a genuine threat or not.

If the jury says no, just as with a self defense claim, then it will not apply.

So all the BS in this thread about this law making 'misgendering' someone a convictable crime as long as the person just says 'I FELT threatened', would be like saying 'self defense laws' and 'castle doctrine' mean a person can shoot the postal delivery person, if they say 'I FELT threatened'.

Neither are true or accurate and just the type of things gun haters and castle doctrine haters, and LGTBQ+ haters would say, to make shit up that is not accurate or true.

In which case, this law is unconstitutional out of the gate, as I already posted.

{[FONT=&quot]First, Counterman points out that, to justify punishing speech as [/FONT]incitement[FONT=&quot], or speech encouraging listeners to engage in illegal conduct, the Supreme Court requires that the speaker specifically intend to cause “imminent lawless action,” regardless of how the speech “might have been understood.” [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Second, Counterman argues that under [/FONT]defamation[FONT=&quot] law, a public figure accusing a speaker of injuring their reputation must prove that the speaker acted with “actual malice,” meaning knowledge or [/FONT]reckless[FONT=&quot] disregard of whether a statement was false. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Counterman explains that the Supreme Court required proof of intent in defamation cases to protect freedom of expression and to prevent censorship. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Similarly, Counterman asserts that the Supreme Court requires a finding of intent before punishing speech as [/FONT]fighting words[FONT=&quot], or speech meant to incite violence.}

[/FONT]Counterman v. Colorado | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

The constitution is not a constraint for the left, so I expect the Michigan Bundestag to pass the bill regardless of constitutionality and for Frau Fuhrer Whitman to sign it, knowing full well that it's unconstitutional.

 

[QP!]

What is the potential crime?

Real threats as determined by a jury.

What you are asking is like asking 'what is a real threat a person with a gun could perceive, where the person is not overtly pointing another gun (weapon) at them, such that a jury would decide, using the reasonable person test, that it was justified self defense'.

That is not something easy to answer as in each case you would list, it would be possible, based on very specific instances that the answer would be 'justified' in some cases and 'not justified' in others.

 

[Bigdog]

You vote for Trump.

That is worse than any of the fictional bullshit you mentioned above.

If you had any character at all, you would be ashamed of a vote for that person.

I don't know if you've been lied to or are just ill informed, Frank.

Why you and your boy, Biden, THINK Will Thomas is a woman is beyond me.