Mvoid,

I don't know the thinking of the office nor do I pretend to. The fact is that Jesus was convicted of displaying not selling.

Yes, I'm aware of that, thank you. You've stated it more than enough times for me to get it. What I'm asking for is a logical reason why the officer took additional steps beyond what was needed, in the process destroying evidence, in order to arrest him. The obvious assumption is that this was a case of arrest first, come up with a charge later. The very fact that the officer removed the comic from the wall trumps any proof to how it was displayed. As was stated at the start of this thread, a good portion of the prosecution's case revolved around the idea that "only a kid would be in a comic book store, therefore we don't care where you kept it. Your only potential customers were kids. The only people in that room could have been kids, don't gimme that 'properly displayed' bullshit."

Of course, no proof has been mentioned whatsoever that a kid ever got any obscene material from Jesus. Why? Because the exchange for which he got arrested was made between two adults. There were no children involved at any time.

Do I know for a fact that no kid ever got obscene material from him? Nope. But in this country "I don't know but I can guess" isn't good enough for a conviction (in theory.) Given the information we have on hand, we can assume that this is one big fat bullshit charge.

Mvoid,

So, you know what the officer was thinking. You were there and watched. You knew the whole thing from start to finish. I'm impressed. How did you find this all out? Or did you assume it?

Have you read the transcripts from the trial or just the parts the CBLDF wants you to read?

Again, I can only go by what Jesus was convicted of and that was displaying the book. The article stress' that he sold the book and was arrested for that. That is not the case or he would have been tried for that which he couldn't have because it's not against the law.

Back to the officer buying the book. Maybe the officer was gathering evidence (imagine that in a criminal case, who knew). Maybe the officer liked the book and wanted to buy it after he determined an arrest was warrented. Maybe he was told to buy the book from his superior as part of the "sting" operation. Maybe his girlfriend likes erotic comic books and was hoping to score that night. Maybe it was part of the alien/UFO conspericy that will over take us all. Maybe the black helicopters were circling waiting for him to buy the book as a signal. Maybe... Maybe... Maybe... Who knows and who cares because that has nothing to do with the case.

I made the most logical guess from what's at hand, yes. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, I'm making the assumption based on the cop not having any agenda other than his boss telling him, "Go bust that smut peddler." If you have anything to contradict that, I'd be interested to hear it.



Somehow I doubt the Dallas newspapers are controlled by the CBLDF, allowing them to show me only what the CBLDF wants.



Maybe because it's a weird incongruity that the book was ever sold.



When the intended case was one based around display, you'd think he'd take pains to not remove the book from the shelves.

That is, if there was a case to be made.



Possible.

Unlikely to the point of not being worth mentioning, but possible.



Again, when the intended case revolved around the book's display? After all, you're the first to point out that the sale is irrelevant, only the display matters.



File this one under buying the comic for himself...



More logical than some of the stuff you've said.



But Flying Pig, I was under the impression that the DISPLAY was the most vital part of the case? That's certainly what you said several times earlier. But the cop changing that all-important display is irrelevant? How does that work out?

Well, the argument that the DA made has been quoted at length elsewhere, but she said specically in regards to the expert testimony (which, again, they never cross examined or offered opposing views): "Who are they kidding when they say this is art. And, again, why are we here? ... This medium, the medium that this
obscenity is placed in is done so in an appealing manner to children. Comic books, and I don't care what type of evidence or what type of
testimony is out there, use your rationality, use your common sense. Comic books, traditionally what we think of, are for kids. This is in a
store directly across from an elementary school and it is put in a medium, in a forum, to directly appeal to kids. That is why we are
here, ladies and gentlemen."

Now of course, no kids were buying it or looking at it or involved in the case at all. But the DA didn't bother to bring that up, and the jury didn't stop to consider it.

PAD

Mvoid,

You and I know that local reporters are NEVER wrong. They always get their facts straight, listen go both sides before going to press and are never biased to the left or right always down the center(Golly gee, Mr. Kent- Jimmy Olsen).

We both disagree on this subject. Great. That's what the 1st is all about.

I can only go by what the conviction was. It's hard enough to get five people to decide on a subject let allow twelve. An attorney in thier closing arguement can use anything short of slander or lies. This goes for prosecution or defendant. If Jesus would have won, you wouldn't be up in arms about what the prosecution said in his close. You'd be cheering the fact that Jesus beat the government. But since Jesus didn't, you want the prosecutors head on a platter.

So, until someone can tell me how the book was in the store, I will have to believe the conviction or until it is overturned (which I believe is a losing case). I don't believe a comic book store should be selling or displaying porn comic books because minors are a good portion of the customer base. CBLDF believes otherwise. So, why should I support them for a belief that I don't follow? Why should keep silent about not supporting them for that reason? Isn't it my 1st amendment right to so? Or is it my 1st amendment right only when it agrees with you?

Hi,

Actually, concidering the Comicon board a community, and since this community has it's standards, no, you can't have your 1st amendment right.
We see no art in your arguement.
Therefore, you and Pat must spend 3 months in the gutters.
God have mercy on your souls.

Bill Lange

I'm going to file this statement in my short term memory for when you talk about juries a few lines down. But in the meantime, you suggested that the CBLDF was biased, and that they were only telling us what we wanted to know. So I presented another source, which we have no reason to believe has any special interest in a specific bias. Now that one's unreliable. If I dig up the transcripts, will the excuse be, "Well, court repoters don't always hit the right keys?"



And I haven't once told you to stop talking. I've only asked you to explain inconsitancies in what you say.



You can't go by facts that are in front of you? That's rough.



It's actually really easy to get twelve close-minded people to agree on anything, especially if you suggest that their children are being threatened.



Earlier you took me to task for assuming I knew what went on in the cop's head. (Even though that wasn't what I was saying.) Now you presume to think you're in mine?
A bullshit prosecution is a bullshit prosecution. You're right that there's less cause to get publicly enraged if the bullshit is dismissed by the legal system. But since the legal system has wrongly upheld that bullshit, yes my anger is more vocal than it would have been otherwise. After all, if there's a wrong to right a person should make their voice heard. But I can assure you that a prosecutor using tactics like that would get my dander up no matter what.



That's what I was saying earlier... when the cop lifted it off the shelf, there was officially no way of knowing exactly how it was displayed. Last I heard, a person is innocent until proven guilty. When we can't know, he is innocent. What's so hard to understand there?

As for "Hey, he was convicted, so it was probably a valid conviction. But if it's overturned that means it wasn't."

Holy freakin' christ. Since when is the result of a trial eminently trustworthy? Well, 12 folk and a judge said the man was bad, so that's fine by me.



Honestly now. Why? No attack meant, you simply haven't made your point clear in this regard and I would like to know.



If the porn is not sold or shown to minors, what's the difference?



No one has ever suggested that you have to. Only that those who do agree should help out.



FP, I'm not having this exact same argument about the 1st amendment with you again. It only guarantees that you can speak. Not that anyone has to accept what you say. On top of that, you're on a message board, which is private property. Your first amendment rights do not guarantee that you can say whatever you want without reprisals while you're posting here. If you want to form your own web page on your own webhost, and say, "COMIC PORN IS THE DEVIL" no one can stop you. Here you can be stopped. In addition, if Rick Veitch or Steve Conley were to show up and say, "Carroll, your opinions are not welcome on this board. Shut up or get out." I would have no legal recourse.

But you already knew that, since I already told you FOUR PAGES AGO.

Additionally. Where have I ever suggested that you are not to speak? I've only said that you're wrong. There's a difference.

Since Keith's moved I've been trying to remember how the old store was set up. The adult stuff was at the very back of the store. There was a doorway to enter that could be viewed from the register area. It was basically a little room they built. On the outside was boxes of back issues and the inside shelves of the 'adult' stuff. Which ranged from the manga to some Fantagraphics stuff.

When they moved into the new store, they divided the store into two sections. All-ages (under 18) is at the front of the store and everything else (above 18) is at the back. The two sections are divided by a plastic chain, more symbolic than anything else. They've been real good at keeping those kids out.

The adults on the other hand....

I now return you to the Mvoid/flaming pig thread.

Key point here... are the comics still kept in boxes that minors aren't allowed to touch?