Potty Mouth

[Lumberjack98]

whats wrong with my other points

Nothing. I'm a HUGE Carlin fan. Sorry if it sounded like I was taking a jab at you. Rather I was applauding you for using a Carlin reference.

[lunchbox]

whats wrong with my other points

Nothing. I'm a HUGE Carlin fan. Sorry if it sounded like I was taking a jab at you. Rather I was applauding you for using a Carlin reference.

I see it all becomes clear now

I am somewhat of a fan myself what a patriot

[JLaw]

Ooh, someone said a naughty word!

BIG DEAL!

There are adults wandering out in the world unsupervised and sometimes they use adult language. So what. Merely using strong language in a conversation with someone is not disorderly conduct just because some little milquetoast pansy overhears it.

I agree with WarHawk-AVG. Some people need to grow thicker skin.

Big deal? So what? I don't want my 8 year old son hearing and repeating this language. My wife and I have raised him to speak respectfully to people, and I don't want him learning that it's "okay" to use bad words to express his thoughts and feelings.

JLaw, the " little milquetoast pansy "

[KBCraig]

Big deal? So what? I don't want my 8 year old son hearing and repeating this language.

At the age of 8, he has undoubtedly heard "that" word, and many others. You can't control what he hears; you can't control what he repeats, but you can surely influence him to know that certain word are unacceptable.

My personal motto is that profanity is like coffee: it's only effective if you save it until you really, really need it. My wife, on the other hand, is a notorious potty-mouth. By some miracle, our 5 year old has discerned which words he's allowed to repeat, and which words are off-limits.

We keep a dry-erase board on the front of the refrigerator to jot down shopping list items. Our daughter, who became much less circumspect in her language after turning 18, and who is currently experiencing the eruption of wisdom teeth, made a list using the "D" word preceding three items: Anbesol, Ibuprofen, Painkillers. My wife came along and added a few items concerning "kids" and their "needs". Silly fun stuff.

Back to the 5 year old: he reads at a 4th grade level, so when he spotted the board, he carefully erased every instance of the "D-word", and told Mom he didn't want anyone to see it and "be hurt" by the "bad words".

My son has heard much more, and much worse, than was uttered at this Wal-Mart incident. Because he knows it's not acceptable for him to repeat, he doesn't.

[bdickens]

I hate to break it to you, JLaw, but your 8-year-old son has already heard every cuss word in both English and Spanish.

[JLaw]

I hate to break it to you, JLaw, but your 8-year-old son has already heard every cuss word in both English and Spanish.

I do understand that, you are correct bdickens. I will agree with you there.

I guess I get a little too fired up about this topic at times, mainly because I get so tired of hearing it all the time. I guess the days are gone when people are offended by use of foul language in public? I'm not trying to start anything here, my apologies if it seems that way. Just trying to state an opinion on the all to common acceptance of profanity in a public environment.

JLaw

[flb_78]

Last time I checked, WalMart is private property. I didn't realize an officer can cite your someone for using vulgar language on private property. Isn't this the same argument used by those who display the 30.06 sign? It's private property. If WalMart has a problem with her language then WalMart should have been the ones to call the authorities to handle the situation.

I still have yet to understand how folks can claim the business is private property, but I can still be arrested for "public" intoxication on said private property.

Which is it? Public or Private?

[lunchbox]

Last time I checked, WalMart is private property. I didn't realize an officer can cite your someone for using vulgar language on private property. Isn't this the same argument used by those who display the 30.06 sign? It's private property. If WalMart has a problem with her language then WalMart should have been the ones to call the authorities to handle the situation.

I still have yet to understand how folks can claim the business is private property, but I can still be arrested for "public" intoxication on said private property.

Which is it? Public or Private?

good point

[WildBill]

Last time I checked, WalMart is private property. I didn't realize an officer can cite your someone for using vulgar language on private property. Isn't this the same argument used by those who display the 30.06 sign? It's private property. If WalMart has a problem with her language then WalMart should have been the ones to call the authorities to handle the situation.

I still have yet to understand how folks can claim the business is private property, but I can still be arrested for "public" intoxication on said private property.

Which is it? Public or Private?

A public place can be on private property.

Texas Penal Code Title 1 Chapter 1.
"Public place" means any place to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access and includes, but is not limited to, streets, highways, and the common areas of schools, hospitals, apartment houses, office buildings, transport
facilities, and shops.

[lunchbox]

then sams club would not apply as you must be a member to get in

[SCone]

Using foul language is no different than using a firearm without proper training.

Any fool can pop off a few rounds without regard to target, placement, or backstop. Sometimes, it can be done without harming anyone. But then there are other times that someone is going to get hurt. May not be serious, may be forgivable, but it could also be deadly. Leaving scars for a lifetime.

Regardless, it could have all been avoided by proper training and a little restraint.

[eric]

Mr. cone, could you please tell us what you really mean to say, minus the goody- goody talk? Were you there, did you see what transpired?

[bdickens]

Restraint. Exactly. Restraint.

I get wound up, too. I get wound up about people who have a little bit of authority and start throwing it around to satisfy their egos.

And that's what this discussion is all about. It's about this guy Decker who happens to be a Fire Marshall who overheard a woman say "They're [the batteries] all ----ing gone" and got all offended about it and decided to throw his badge around. Whatever law enforcement authority Decker may or may not have, someone else here hit the nail right on the head: Law enforcement officers are not supposed to get offended. But this "law enforcement officer," if you can call him that (he's a Fire Marshall for goodness sake!), got offended and allowed his personal prejudices to cloud his judgment. When Ms. Fridge called him on it, he blew a gasket and escalated the situation to a degree far beyond what was necessary. His petty tyrant ego got bruised because Ms, Fridge didn't "respect his authority" enough.

Frankly, I believe Ms. Fridge's version of the story. I think Decker is a liar and so is his chief. I've seen people like Decker before and have had to deal with them. Little Napoleons with a badge, or some stripes, who let it go to their heads. They take some tiny imagined infraction and totally overreact, throwing their rank around because "you better respect my authority." I've enjoyed shutting jerks like that down on more than one occasion. They ended up getting embarrassed publicly because they were overstepping their bounds and had to get a good spanking by their bosses.

If it was me, Decker would be facing a lawsuit and his chief would do well to disassociate the department from that jerk's actions or they would me named as a co-defendant.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning coarse behavior in public. But there has to be some kind of perspective maintained. Dropping an F-bomb is not a "breach of the peace," however distasteful it may of may not be. Escalating the situation with the handcuffs and all is. There's a big difference between "They're all ----ing gone" and a loud rant of "F--- this and F--- that and F--- you and blankedy blank blank blank all you blank blanks...." Maybe next Decker can arrest the fat guy in shorts and a stained wife-beater shirt. That's pretty distasteful too.

The First Amendment protects free speech. It wasn't put in the Constitution to protect pleasant speech -- to protect agreeable speech. No, it was put there to protect disagreeable speech, controversial speech, distasteful speech, offensive speech. It was not put there to protect your sensitive ears from hearing things you might find objectionable.

While there may be limits on the First Amendment, those limits tend to be extremely narrow.

How ironic I find it that some of the same people in this thread cheering Fire Marshall Decker on in his efforts to clean up WalMart are some of the same people who elsewhere argue that there should be no limits whatsoever on the Second Amendment. Which is it? Are Constitutional rights subject to limits or not? You can't have it both ways.

[lunchbox]

Restraint. Exactly. Restraint.

I get wound up, too. I get wound up about people who have a little bit of authority and start throwing it around to satisfy their egos.

And that's what this discussion is all about. It's about this guy Decker who happens to be a Fire Marshall who overheard a woman say "They're [the batteries] all ----ing gone" and got all offended about it and decided to throw his badge around. Whatever law enforcement authority Decker may or may not have, someone else here hit the nail right on the head: Law enforcement officers are not supposed to get offended. But this "law enforcement officer," if you can call him that (he's a Fire Marshall for goodness sake!), got offended and allowed his personal prejudices to cloud his judgment. When Ms. Fridge called him on it, he blew a gasket and escalated the situation to a degree far beyond what was necessary. His petty tyrant ego got bruised because Ms, Fridge didn't "respect his authority" enough.

Frankly, I believe Ms. Fridge's version of the story. I think Decker is a liar and so is his chief. I've seen people like Decker before and have had to deal with them. Little Napoleons with a badge, or some stripes, who let it go to their heads. They take some tiny imagined infraction and totally overreact, throwing their rank around because "you better respect my authority." I've enjoyed shutting jerks like that down on more than one occasion. They ended up getting embarrassed publicly because they were overstepping their bounds and had to get a good spanking by their bosses.

If it was me, Decker would be facing a lawsuit and his chief would do well to disassociate the department from that jerk's actions or they would me named as a co-defendant.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning coarse behavior in public. But there has to be some kind of perspective maintained. Dropping an F-bomb is not a "breach of the peace," however distasteful it may of may not be. Escalating the situation with the handcuffs and all is. There's a big difference between "They're all ----ing gone" and a loud rant of "F--- this and F--- that and F--- you and blankedy blank blank blank all you blank blanks...." Maybe next Decker can arrest the fat guy in shorts and a stained wife-beater shirt. That's pretty distasteful too.

The First Amendment protects free speech. It wasn't put in the Constitution to protect pleasant speech -- to protect agreeable speech. No, it was put there to protect disagreeable speech, controversial speech, distasteful speech, offensive speech. It was not put there to protect your sensitive ears from hearing things you might find objectionable.

While there may be limits on the First Amendment, those limits tend to be extremely narrow.

How ironic I find it that some of the same people in this thread cheering Fire Marshall Decker on in his efforts to clean up WalMart are some of the same people who elsewhere argue that there should be no limits whatsoever on the Second Amendment. Which is it? Are Constitutional rights subject to limits or not? You can't have it both ways.

maybe they should arrest him at the next big fire when its all going south and he lets one slip

HA clean up walmart

[SCone]

Mr. cone, could you please tell us what you really mean to say, minus the goody- goody talk? Were you there, did you see what transpired?

Ask yourself why ANYONE would bother with this issue if it really was ONLY a single cuss word, as the woman is saying? Come on now, this was a super Wal-Mart, she was in automotive looking for lantern batteries.

Now take a look at the video with the Chief, he tells what happened. He says the woman continued to curse after the Fire Marshall told her to stop and then told him, "It's none of your f----g business."

Adding these two known items together tells me that she was in a busy part of the store cussing out a UNIFORMED OFFICER. What choice did she leave him? Was he just going to walk away? What type of confidence in our law enforcement community would that give us?

As far as my "goody-goody talk" is concerned, how would you prefer to discuss this issue?

I would like to think that I am making sound, solid arguements that would provoke some thought amoung the others reading this forum. Maybe in doing so, the next time they are in public (or private) and a situation occurs, they will have already had the discussion, already fought the battle, and in having done so, be better equiped to handle the matter, whatever the outcome.