The only thing I'm shocked about is what people here get shocked about, day after day. And, distressingly, the number of people who understand law so poorly they think carving out exceptions to rights for cases that bruise their tender minds is a good idea. You are of course correct. This skirts the obscenity line, but Americans have always been far more willing to tolerate violence than sexuality, because we're fucked up in a different way than Euros are fucked up. I also strongly suspect this is cartoon violence, and not realist art or photos of effects done by John Carpenter's people. That makes a pretty big difference. And if this is so offensive, why does no one bat an eye at skulls. Are people not aware of where skulls from? Hint: it isn't alive people. Also, if the babies are headless, how do you know if their eyes have been cut out? Are the heads just sitting there? Inquiring minds. Anyway, I doubt he's dangerous, or any more so than anyone else. He probably just thinks he's hardc0re and still shops at Hot Topic. Actual serial killers? Tend to be sociopaths who are capable of risk evaluation. Jeff Dahmer didn't wear a T-shirt that said "I'm a humanitarian" with a picture of a guy roasting over a spit. What I am surprised about is that you can legally drive around with Tom Swift's electric rifle. Is that strikingly better than driving around with a loaded gun?
Hell, it sounds to me like this guy is just the highway equivalent of an internet troll. He’s deliberately being outrageous, trying to get attention in his childish little way. The best thing to do is ignore him.
And then you would be discharged from the force, brought up on criminal charges and sued by the guy who you falsely arrested. Depends on how you define pornography. There are plenty of painted vans around that some people consider pornographic. Hell, there was artwork on some WWII plans that some people consider pornographic.
Christ! They didn't even find anything to pull him over for? On this side of the pond, all you need is a foreign sounding name and you're all set. If I had stickers like that on my car it would equal a 48 hour psych-hold at a bare minimum. I got fined for a bloody sticker that said: "If you're reading this, you're losing." The guy claimed it incited reckless driving... Or to get a paint gun and paint both his car and him in a lovely shade of neutral white.
I would say this is a definite reason to keep a close eye on this guy and assess whether he is a threat or not, and perhaps needs psychiatric help, but shouldn't be a reason to arrest him on its own. Sadly life is replete with examples of people who are clearly disturbed slipping through the net and going on to commit terrible acts of violence, I don't think I need to remind people of the most recent high profile case of clear danger signals being ignored leading to tragic consequences. Doing this alone doesn't make him insane, there are many reasons why sane people do things that appear crazy, but it's certainly reason to be concerned. The authorities should at least approach him to attempt to assess his mental state.
Free speech covers that more than it covers sunshine and lolipops. So long as the pictures don't depict anything illegal (i.e. child pornography) the imagery, while offensive, is covered in free speech. I mean, people have driving around with Calvin pissing on things for decades and how many trucks these days have scrotums?
That sort of thing is what many, if not most Americans would define as the very essence of a “nanny state.” No, thanks. May I use that as a quote line?
The death's head insignia has a pretty cool history behind it. The SS wore it primarily because of its Prussian symbolism (it was used by the Prussian cavalry under Frederick the Great, and also by the Brunswicker troops on the Allied side against Napoleon at Waterloo). It's been on the "good guys" side as often as not. There's a regiment of British Lancers that still use it, and I think RAF, too. I'm pretty sure Russian and Scandinavian troops have also used it at times too. I want to say the Americans have also used it but forget where. I was more concerned as to whether the babies are fucking each other, or whether there's an unknown 3rd party involved.
I think this is about as close to what I think as anyone has come. The stickers themselves might not be criminal, but plastering them all over his car might be a sign that the guy is disturbed and has the potential to hurt himself and others. Could he be a performance artist unveiling his latest attack on morality? Yes, but that's why it's a good idea to investigate further. It seems like there's three options here: 1. He doesn't know the stickers are inappropriate, in which case he's got some major issues. 2. He doesn't care that the stickers are inappropriate, in which case he's probably not going to be the best neighbor anyway. 3. He knows they're wrong, but is just doing it for the shock value. In which case he's just an attention whore with really bad taste. If he hasn't signed up here already, he probably should, post haste. In any case, it seems to me like it's a case of "if you act like an asshole, don't be surprised when people treat you like an asshole." Also, the taser and pepper spray, which may or may not be legal in his state, indicate that he's expecting some kind of confrontation, which is another tip-off that the police might want to keep an eye on this guy.
"Nanny state" is a bloody understatement. Safe to say I told him to put what where and when. Not that it helped, but it made me feel better.
Right. Serial murderers generally don’t advertise their intentions. They’re often the quiet, shy, unassuming neighbor who keeps to himself — and has a dozen bodies buried in his basement.
He could get caught on obscenity. There's a number of elements which must be met, and his actions may or may not meet them. I don't remember all of it right now, but one element is evaluated on a national level, another at then community level. It would be arguable, though.
I'm only pointing out that there is a line, not attempting to define it. Clearly, you can't have a 36" x 24" blown-up photograph of full frontal nudity mounted on the side of the car just like your buddy in the passenger seat can't hang it out the window "au naturale." You probably wouldn't be allowed to drive around with a cartoon featuring child pornography on your hood despite the SCOTUS ruling that electronic versions of that are acceptable. There is a line somewhere. Agree? As for what defines pornography, I suppose that will fall on the arresting or fining officer using the "I know it when I see it" method. Those arrested or ticketed would, of course, be free to argue their case in court. I'm sure we all know how effective that is.
At least, as much as I disapprove of those kinds of movies, people have to make a choice if they want to go to the theater and see that, not to mention the rating means (or ought to mean) that there is an ID check going on to make sure kids aren't getting in. And if they rent or buy it at home, they aren't inflicting it on the general public. This makes me think of something I saw on a plane once, which illustrates how a normal person handles that kind of stuff. There was this guy in a seat near me who was watching movies on his laptop, and twice he changed movies because he realized it was offensive to do that where other people, who didn't ask to see that, could see. (I think the first one may have been Shaun of the Dead, and the second was definitely 300, with him finally settling on Transformers.) I personally was not bothered by either of those movies...and I was actually trying to spy so I could watch, but I think he did the respectful thing by remembering the fact that he was in a public space and not everyone wanted to see things that were graphic. I'm pretty sure that it would've actually been illegal if the guy had been watching a porno on that plane. But yeah...the point of that story being I think normal people would not do either of those things in public.
Next time pretty girls strip naked because they protest against animal cruelty, we register them as sex offenders because they might disturb the little children passing by. boobatuba's talk about there being a line, somewhere, is contradictory in itself. If there actually were a line, then he could clearly define it.
Personally I'm not sure what exactly the problem is. Yes, it's rather messed up, and if I knew the guy I'd probably have a word with him about whether everything was alright, but it's that dude's car, right? It's not like he's putting those stickers on other people's cars or something. I'd say what he wants to cover his car with is his business, people shouldn't get worked up about it. I'm more worried that the guy had a taser and pepper spray on his belt. The fact that the guy seems to feel he needs weapons within immediate grabbing range (even if they're not lethal weapons) and actually carries them around with him sounds rather dangerous to me. But as it's America, land of the gun, I'm guessing that sort of thing is considered normal over there.