Shreveport Louisiana man Aaron Woodbury was arrested for wearing his pants too low

[Cebu_4_2]

Shreveport Louisiana man Aaron Woodbury was arrested for wearing his pants too low


Woodbury could be fined up to $100
http://media.thedenverchannel.com/photo/2013/04/17/Aaron-Woodbury_1366210809974_402656_ver1.0_320_240.gif

Astin Adams | Email Me

(justin.adams@kmgh.com)


SHREVEPORT, La. - A Louisiana man was arrested for wearing his pants too low.
Police say they were responding to a fight, when Aaron Woodbury wouldn’t follow their commands to pull up his pants.
“They gave him an opportunity to correct the problems and leave the area,” said Shreveport police Sgt. Bill Goodin. “Refusing to do so ultimately they made a decision to take him into custody.”
Aaron's wife Semekia Woodbury says he was arrested only a block away from their home.
“I’m like, you’re arresting him because he would pull up his pants? Why?” Semekia asked.
Woodbury was charged with resisting arrest and the wearing of pants below the waist in public.
According to Shreveport Government Website (http://www.shreveportla.gov/dept/police/2007/091207.sagging%20pants%20takes%20effect.htm), anyone caught with their pants sagging below their waist so low as to show their skin or undergarments could be cited and summoned to appear in court. If convicted, they could be fined up to $100 and sentenced to perform a day of community service.

[gunDriller]

it may be a fashion crime.

but since when does the US gov. have a right to spend our tax $ prosecuting fashion crimes ?

[Hatha Sunahara]

It wasn't the fashion police. It was the obedience police. When they order you to do something, you ignore them at your own risk. Now, if everybody ignored them, they might just give up, but when they successfully make hell for people, they will keep doing it--harder next time.


Hatha

[midnight rambler]

In the opinion of some wearing one's pants below one's anus/genitals is indecent - very little difference from public urination aka 'indecent exposure'.

And FWIW, this low slung 'fashion' (for those of you wanting to consider it 'fashion') originated in the prison culture.

[VX1]

Look, I'd hope my long history here would demonstrate I'm no statist, but ignorant "citizens" who are unable to demonstrate a basic level of decency on their own, should expect to be treated like children and told to pull their pants up. It's along the same lines as "the Constitution is unfit for an immoral people"; it just doesn't work if there is no line between right and wrong.

[Jewboo]

http://www.aaanything.net/wp-content/gallery/another-week-another-wtf_1/wtf_walmart_fat_lady_lick_at_the_split_tshirt.jpg

https://lh3.ggpht.com/-d6KWykZOrc8/TrqI_xNipnI/AAAAAAAAAWU/dFz3C2-Khjk/s1600/walmart.jpg

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001872075/cart-47720532404_xlarge.jpeg

Send a SWAT Team and paddy wagon over to Wal-Mart. Would be a bargain for the taxpayers who are not sight-impaired.

[Twisted Titan]

I may not like what you do BUT i will defend to the death your right to do it.

What starts gleefully Starts with the common thug eventuallys leads to the door of the common citizen

[gunDriller]

http://www.aaanything.net/wp-content/gallery/another-week-another-wtf_1/wtf_walmart_fat_lady_lick_at_the_split_tshirt.jpg

ah yes, The Human Form.

Brings to mind the term Divinely Inspired Grace.


or is it Butt-crack-inspired Vomit ?


Dang, i think i'll stick to audio webcasts. :)

[Jewboo]

...the common citizen



http://www.eatright.org/uploadedImages/Master/images/autism_diet_home.jpg

http://louisianarealestate101.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/free-candy-van-e1351623171385.jpg

Yeah...we must not judge. Discernment is hate.

[midnight rambler]

I may not like what you do BUT i will defend to the death your right to do it.

What starts gleefully Starts with the common thug eventuallys leads to the door of the common citizen

So...you support (to the death) immorality?? ???

[Twisted Titan]

Immorality is subjective except in cases of assualt murder or rape against childern then its clear cut

The point im try ing to stress is when the state wants to increase its power. It parades one if these fools in front masses and takes sweeping actions to Which the public cheers.

When in not to short order The state us taking a agressive stance against something YOU do.

Look how "hoarders " of ammo are beinging deamonized

[Shami-Amourae]

http://www.eatright.org/uploadedImages/Master/images/autism_diet_home.jpg

http://louisianarealestate101.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/free-candy-van-e1351623171385.jpg

Yeah...we must not judge. Discernment is hate.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRjY-NzjA-c

[midnight rambler]

Immorality is subjective except in cases of assualt murder or rape against childern then its clear cut

The point im try ing to stress is when the state wants to increase its power. It parades one if these fools in front masses and takes sweeping actions to Which the public cheers.

When in not to short order The state us taking a agressive stance against something YOU do.

Look how "hoarders " of ammo are beinging deamonized

I think you've lost your mind. Seriously. Indecency of this magnitude would've been handled more harshly (by society at the minimum) in this instant case 40-50 years ago.

And there's absolutely NOTHING new about 'ammo hoarders' being demonized, the most vocal collectivists/statists have been demonizing those folks forever - the difference now is that the collectivists/statists are on a roll and their fellow travelers in the media are giving them a boost.


"the Constitution is unfit for an immoral people"

The instant case is a perfect example of the above bit of wisdom, therefore the state must step in and 'govern' those who are incapable (and incompetent) to govern themselves appropriately.

[vacuum]

This type of thing belongs only on the most local levels. Federal and state governments have no business making laws like this, but at the community or city level, if that's what people want, they should be able to make such ordinances. It's always possible to change such local laws if one desires to get a coalition together, or it's also possible to leave a local area while staying in the same general place with the same job. So it seems like it's working in this case, they had a local issue and made a local law to address it.

[Jewboo]

...The state is taking an aggressive stance against something YOU do.



http://www.chicagonow.com/quark-in-the-road/files/2012/07/otis.png

I don't recall ever disagreeing with you before TT. I imagine we all can agree here about the Federal government, but I personally don't have any problem with my LOCAL police keeping the drunks off our streets, shutting up that noisy neighbor's blaring stereo after 10pm, or responding to the usual neighborhood idiot-on-the-loose complaints:

https://lh3.ggpht.com/_W6BeTblMnPM/TFJ3bwWEgbI/AAAAAAAAAYc/VevVyNoWKCE/s1600/Gene.jpeg

:(?? I'M NOT A "STATIST" BUT MAYBE A TOWNIST.

[midnight rambler]

This type of thing belongs only on the most local levels. Federal and state governments have no business making laws like this, but at the community or city level, if that's what people want, they should be able to make such ordinances. It's always possible to change such local laws if one desires to get a coalition together, or it's also possible to leave a local area while staying in the same general place with the same job. So it seems like it's working in this case, they had a local issue and made a local law to address it.

I couldn't agree more that it should be a LOCAL issue and not an issue taken up by the state legislature. As I posted earlier, this 'fashion trend' originated in the prison culture. Some are unable to make this connection. This indicates that the prison culture is becoming more 'mainstream' (creating still immoral and incompetent people who are unable to govern themselves - which is what the Death Cult has designed), and being that many with a moral compass have (rightly) brought it to the attention of their state representatives those state legislature have done something to address the situation (made this particular 'fashion trend' 'illegal' statewide by having the state actors govern those who are incapable and incompetent to govern themselves).

The ultimate goal is one giant open air prison.

[iOWNme]

Once again the STATIST of GSUS have spoken......

People here LOVE to complain about the 'Government' when it is doing things they DISAGREE with, but they clamor and beg for the same 'Government' to wield and use that same authoritarian power to crush others that in their 'opinion' should be 'governed'. These same people would NEVER actually be the one to go up to a non violent person and use FORCE to compel them to act like they want them to. No. But they feel more than 'patriotic' to call on professional thugs/murderers and thieves to do their bidding for them. Then these same people just cant figure out what is wrong with society.

EVERY SINGLE poster in this thread has seen gangsters walking with their pants hanging below their asses. How many of you actually went over and threatened VIOLENCE if the guy wouldnt pull his pants up? I bet none. But you would feel just fine about calling the 'Authorities' to handle it, wouldnt you? If you answered yes, YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.


Its always the slaves who mind the other slaves for the Master. That way he doesnt really have to do anything to keep his slaves subjugated.

[vacuum]

People here LOVE to complain about the 'Government' when it is doing things they DISAGREE with, but they clamor and beg for the same 'Government' to wield and use that same authoritarian power to crush others that in their 'opinion' should be 'governed'.

There's a difference between supporting a law and supporting people's rights to agree as a group to make such a law.

Lets say there are 3 families that each have houses on a particular plot of land. There is a central area with a fire pit and picnic bench. They all agree that no one is allowed to let their dog crap in that area.

Well, one of the kids of one of the families disagrees with this rule. He has a dog and he thinks it's fine for his dog to crap there if it wants to. However, if he breaks this rule he's compelled, he faces a violent punishment.

Is this against human rights and nature? Can a community of people not all agree on certain rules, and if you don't like it you can just leave? Or at least compromise or try to change the rules?

There are always going to be slaves that want rules to keep them safe. The key thing is to make sure they can have their rules, but only at the most local levels possible. That way they can live in their bubble and other people, such as yourself or any of us, can create our own communities with our own rules.

I may not agree with a certain law, but I may agree that a group has the right to make such a law if they choose to. By trying to not let them have the laws that they want, at least at a community level, we face the problem of a civil war because the two sides are now irreconcilable. The better solution is to create more successful and peaceful communities by using our own laws (or lack thereof), and allow people to voluntarily come to the realization that such a system is better.

I don't think you should be compelled by the law in the OP if you don't want to be. As long as you can live in a community where this doesn't occur, that's ok. If this was implemented at the federal or state level though, then I agree with you. There's no reasonable action you can take to avoid these unjust (because you don't agree with them) laws. In that case it's time to fight back.

[palani]

The point is the State of Louisiana is a civil law state. The man could be charged only if there is a statute or ordinance on the books. In the remaining 49 states common law is the rule. There need not be a statute or ordinance. There only needs to be an INJURY. You can be charged with ANYTHING in most of the 49 states but there must be someone accusing you of injuring them. Common law takes no cognizance of statutes.

[7th trump]

The point is the State of Louisiana is a civil law state. The man could be charged only if there is a statute or ordinance on the books. In the remaining 49 states common law is the rule. There need not be a statute or ordinance. There only needs to be an INJURY. You can be charged with ANYTHING in most of the 49 states but there must be someone accusing you of injuring them. Common law takes no cognizance of statutes.
I see you woke up drunk palani.
Once again do you have any legal or lawful evidence proving your assertion that:

Common law takes no cognizance of statutes.


I say you don't have a clue because most of the 50 states have statutorized their Constititions.
And you know all to well palani that Constitutions are primarily written from the Common law form.

So please show us where its written that "Common law takes no cognizance of statutes" or simple please just shut the fuck up.

[Jewboo]

Well, one of the kids of one of the families disagrees with this rule. He has a dog and he thinks it's fine for his dog to crap there if it wants to....



http://i.huffpost.com/gen/433796/thumbs/r-POOP-SCOOP-large570.jpg
SO COMMON A PROBLEM THEY EVEN STOCK SIGNS IN THE STORES



That would be Sui Juris' or Blink's kid. Taught to be a "Libertarian" who can annoy the entire neighborhood by allowing their dog to take a freedum anywhere.

:D

[palani]

So please show us where its written that "Common law takes no cognizance of statutes" or simple please just shut the fuck up.
I seriously doubt if you have the ability but concentrate for a bit and see if you can read between the lines.



THIS law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himfelf, is of courfe fuperior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and fuch of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.


MUNICIPAL law, thus underftood, is properly defined to be “a rule of civil conduct prefcribed by the fupreme power in “a ftate, commanding what is right and prohibiting what is “wrong.” Let us endeavour to explain it's feveral properties, as they arife out of this definition.


MUNICIPAL law is alfo “a rule of civil conduct.” This diftinguifhes municipal law from the natural, or revealed; the former of which is the rule of moral conduct, and the latter not only the rule of moral conduct, but alfo the rule of faith. Thefe regard man as a creature, and point out his duty to God, to himfelf, and to his neighbour, confidered in the light of an individual. But municipal or civil law regards him alfo as a citizen, and bound to other duties towards him neighbour, than thofe of mere nature and religion: duties, which he has engaged in by enjoying the benefits of the common union; and which amount to no more, than that he do contribute, on his part, to the fubfiftence and peace of the fociety.


LAW, COMMON. The common law is that which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. It has never received the sanction of the legislature, by an express act, wbich is the criterion by which it is distinguished from the statute law. It has never been reduced to writing; by this expression, however, it is not meant that all those laws are at present merely oral, or communicated from former ages to the present solely by word of mouth, but that the evidence of our common law is contained in our books of Reports, and depends on the general practice and judicial adjudications of our courts.

[singular_me]

And FWIW, this low slung 'fashion' (for those of you wanting to consider it 'fashion') originated in the prison culture........................ So...you support (to the death) immorality??? .

prison culture? I heard that too.... and that in prison, low pants meant/means available for male prostitutes/gays.

I wouldnt fight for the immorality of others as over-self indulgence always has a heavy price tag.

[Hitch]

Keep in mind that this discussion is about a city ordinance in Shreveport. While there's countless stupid ordinances that cities have, such as you can't wear cowboy boots unless you own at least 2 cows, or you can't tie your elephant to a parking meter, etc. The books on theses laws are huge. Basically, all it takes is one idiot to do something stupid, and a law gets voted in to prevent it from happening again.

However, I must say, this wearing the pants too low ordinance is brilliant. Just brilliant.

I will explain. Strictly from a LE perspective. While the term 'racial' profiling raises a big stink...there is such a thing as 'criminal' profiling. If a person is wearing their pants too low, as we all see in the ghettos, there statisticly speaking is a higher chance that person is a turd, or thug.

So...making it a local law that their are breaking, gives the police the ability to detain them. See, lot's of bad guys are caught because they were detained for breaking some stupid law. I once caught a burglar who had multiple arrest warrants out for him, because he was riding his bike on the sidewalk (local ordinance). He was riding his bike when I stopped him to talk. He ran, we chased, and even now years later he's hopefully still in prison and can't break into any more homes.

In Shreveport, the cops can stop any person who may fit a profile of a criminal to investigate. It may sound wrong, but if you want to get bad guys off the street, it works.

[7th trump]

I seriously doubt if you have the ability but concentrate for a bit and see if you can read between the lines.

Hey look dipshit I don't need to read between the damn lines...all I'm asking is you prove your assertion.
Why do say bullshit as if we are all stupid chattle that cant think for ourselves and then tell us to read between YOUR lines?
If what you say is true then there's a law in the books that says so.........show us the god damn law or take this bullshit you are regurgitating somewhere else!

[madfranks]

So...you support (to the death) immorality?? ???

I don't want to speak for TT, but it's not a matter of supporting immorality, it's a matter of supporting people's free will to choose morality or immorality. Even God respects the sovereignty of man, letting us choose to follow Him or not, without compulsion.

[Jewboo]

I don't want to speak for TT, but it's not a matter of supporting immorality, it's a matter of supporting people's free will to choose morality or immorality. Even God respects the sovereignty of man, letting us choose to follow Him or not, without compulsion.



http://images58.fotki.com/v85/photos/1/115069/2356208/rednecktoilet-vi.jpg

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Science/Images/gay-pride-parade-fairy.jpg

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/155792_464167836998786_1879043332_n.jpg

I don't want to speak for TT, but I doubt God actually insists that we live around this let alone support it.

:D nice try with the God guilt...lol.

[madfranks]

I don't want to speak for TT, but I doubt God actually insists that we live around this let alone support it.

:D nice try with the God guilt...lol.

You are either willfully ignorant, or just playing it for reaction.

:D nice try playing dumb though, LOLOLLOLOLLOLZZ

[Jewboo]

You are either willfully ignorant, or just playing it for reaction.



Calling my free will to choose "ignorant" isn't very Christian brother. You sure dropped that preachy tone quick:




...it's a matter of supporting people's free will to choose... Even God respects the sovereignty of man, letting us choose to follow Him or not, without compulsion.



:D

[palani]

Hey look dipshit

Get hosed!!!

[midnight rambler]

50 years ago SOCIETY would NOT have found this sort of indecency acceptable - PERIOD, however SOCIETY has capitulated to THE (CORPORATE) STATE.

I cannot fathom how a young father could find this drift toward indecency/immorality/utter lack of civilized behavior/Negro jungle culture an 'acceptable' influence for his young child to grow up into. ???

"Civility is easily lost and difficult to gain."

[Hugginator]

...

[madfranks]

50 years ago SOCIETY would NOT have found this sort of indecency acceptable - PERIOD, however SOCIETY has capitulated to THE (CORPORATE) STATE.

I cannot fathom how a young father could find this drift toward indecency/immorality/utter lack of civilized behavior/Negro jungle culture an 'acceptable' influence for his young child to grow up into. ???

"Civility is easily lost and difficult to gain."

You are right, but civility is not gained via the state as some here believe. Civility requires individuals to hold themselves to a higher standard, without an authority holding a gun to their belly demanding it be so. The way to restore civility is for individuals and families to once again show respect to their Creator, and in extension, to everyone else.


Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

This is the first and great commandment.

And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

These are all personal choices that must be made at the individual level; the community or the state cannot make this change for you.