BloggersBase - Comments for article Lakeland man gets 2 years in prison for rap song lyrics

By Anomaly

Sat, 01 Aug 2009 15:23:41 GMT

I would have to agree with you some but agree to disagree on certain points. I certainly do not think that this was a case that deserved even the remote possibility of prosecution no matter how offensive I may find it personally and no matter what my opinion of this "citizen" may be. I have to disagree that just because someone is in jail does not mean that they cannot control what happens on the outside as well. I would point you towards the Mexican Mafia and MS13 both of whom I am personally familiar with as an example. They routinely have leaders "safely tucked away in jail" running their day-to-day operations. I would also have to disagree about your view on law enforcement officers ... or at least those of the "good guys" variety that we discussed earlier ... and with due notice given to the fact that you are in law enforcement and I am not ... yet I do not believe it is the cops on the street who have the thin skin but rather the political party-goers in public office that are behind our men in blue (whether there behind them to aid them or for more nefarious purposes, I will submit to your judgment from personal experience as opposed to my personal opinion) who suffer from the thin skin. These people with political goals seem to be the only ones who are truly pained while our police (again, refer to the "good guys") are the ones who continue to pay for their ... inability to draw the line and their determination to compromise in order not to offend ... those with whom they may or may not personally agree.

PS I love your commentaries but I really love your personal writings much more.

By Dajjal

Sat, 01 Aug 2009 17:32:08 GMT

This is one of those cases that makes me thank God that I am neither a lawyer nor a judge. I find it to be right on the razor's edge. Johnson's association with a violent offender raises the possibility of the song being a form of communication, exhorting his gang members to do his wet work for him.

If that is the case, a two year sentence will only increase his anger, resulting in more, not less future risk to the corrections and law enforcement community. A life sentence would be more appropriate.

If the lyrics truly reflect Johnson's intentions, then the threat may be enduring and proximate.

Barajas, by publishing the song without proper editorial discretion, raises questions about his competence & professionalism.

By MacAaron

Sat, 01 Aug 2009 22:24:48 GMT

As far as I'm concerned, you're free to say, write, sing, etc. whatever you'd like. Words are expression and thoughts. They are NOT the same as hitting, shooting, oppressing, etc. someone.

The DEED is the crime, not the words. This is also my primary objection to "hate crime" laws. Hate is not a crime. Acting on that hate is. However, when you act on your hatred and cause harm, the harm is the real crime, not the thoughts behind it.

Seeing this just proves to me that the Constitution is just about done for. First, it will be rap singers like this who have sketchy pasts. Then it will be a rock and roll singer. Then maybe a political activist. Eventually... Thought Police.

By Anomaly in response to MacAaron

Sat, 01 Aug 2009 23:42:55 GMT

Eventually? They are already prosecuting under "hate laws" with the assumption that they can (and do?) prove intent when no matter how prejudiced someone may be, they are still forcing them to make conjectures about the persons thought and/or frame of mind while they committed the crime. I made that same argument when the nonsense about Hate Crimes Legislation first came up and I remain surprised how many people do not see it.

By Anomaly in response to Dajjal

Sat, 01 Aug 2009 23:56:01 GMT

If you were to work within the constraints of the law it would not be so difficult. You cannot prove intent simply because you cannot prove what someone was thinking. That is why the criminal justice system was established to punish crime alone. Ours is not to punish the individual for their thoughts. Once we get onto that slippery slope, your "activist" du jour will be able to convict you for hating them simply because you do not agree with their position. While that may be a bit of an extreme example, it does show the danger inherent in attempting to punish anything more than the crime which in this case, never occurred. What would these Courthouse "shrinks" say about the like of Van Gogh or Hemingway? We already know what they think about Samuel Clemens because they are already banning him in school libraries while openly promoting "questionable" materials totally irrelevant to their education. Subjecting people to the possibility of criminal prosecution for their thoughts is opening the door to an arbitrary enforcement and abuse of power on an unimaginable scale.

By Dajjal in response to Anomaly

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 01:46:53 GMT

We can not know a man's thoughts, we can only know his actions if we witness them and his expressions if we hear them. How do we know his intentions?

If the song lyrics are an accurate reflection of his intentions, then, at minimum, Johnson should be the subject of careful observation.

In my opinion, the expressed desire to kill a law enforcement officer would be an aggravating circumstance for consideration by the sentencing judge in any future criminal trial.

By Anomaly in response to Dajjal

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 03:01:01 GMT

Your first sentence sums it up pretty well actually. In Marketing we have something we call the six week cycle. You call someone to open a deal on what happens to be a really good day for him and everything goes great, you get along fine and everything looks great. You call him back and are surprised to discover that he is yelling and cussing at you and calling you everything but humans and you lose the deal. Maybe the first time you called him he just got his first hole in one or some other milestone. Maybe the second time you called him, the wife left him that day to be worth his best friend ... took his kids with her, did it in his truck and ran over his dog as she was leaving.

The Six Week Cycle recognizes that everybody has good days and bad days. If we allow the law to be based on "thoughts" or "opinions" how clogged up would our courts be? How arbitrary would enforcement be? Maybe they are "protecting" cops today and hey, that is all good right? And then we have to protect the women of society right? So when a woman claims (often unsubstantiated) that you make her feel threatened or intimidated, you have to be prosecuted too right? Maybe you (figuratively speaking anyhow) only wrote that letter on the day she left in your truck to move in with your best friend after running over your dog in your truck. Maybe you only wrote that second letter when she had you removed from your home so that her and your former best friend could move in ... leaving you with nothing more than the mortgage and a hefty alimony payment while they lived in sin inside of your home.

My point is not that this guy is not a definitive threat to society, himself and perhaps to this cop. In his case, I would hazard to guess that despite cries of him being a "victim of society" he brought much of it on himself. However, prosecuting them for a crime is a lot different than prosecuting them for a song or even what may (though doubtful) have been a simple and random thou

By Dajjal in response to Anomaly

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 04:23:11 GMT

After reading the lyrics, I doubt that they were the result of an instantaneous impulse. There can be little doubt that there was some editing, and that substantial time and thought went into the song.

If the songwriter is a drug dealer, he is a danger to the community and to himself. And his song could be just the inspiration some drunken or drug crazed criminal needs to shoot a cop.

By Anna in response to MacAaron

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:29:41 GMT

I agree with you completely. We need to protect our Freedom Of Speech Rights. This is not fair to him or to another other U.S. Citizen.

By kaytiiangel

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:30:42 GMT

More Floridiots to add to the ever-growing list. This man does not deserve to be in jail for writing about his feelings. May he be released quickly and the First Amendment continue to prevail.

By kaytiiangel in response to MacAaron

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:33:45 GMT

Well, said. He didn't even release the song himself. Imagine the outrage if people started reading excerpts from people's personal diaries and journals. If this man was arrested, soon jails would be filled with others simply writing as an outlet.

By MacAaron in response to Dajjal

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 22:08:51 GMT

Just as there was editing done to make the Koran what it is? How about the Bible? Book of Mormon? Maybe the Torah?

I'm not saying this guy writes stuff equivalent to the verse in the Koran or the beauty of the Torah. What I'm saying is that all of the books I listed above have been interpreted to mean violent things to some people.

So are the books to blame? This guy's writings? What about the scrawlings on the bathroom stall? Do we condemn the books, the note pages, the bathroom stall because someone wrote something that might be seen as ugly?

What about the person who wrote them? Do we condemn them too? What if they lived thousands of years ago? Then what? Do we go after the people who read those words today?

The real question here is whether thinking, saying, or writing something is wrong and should be condemned and considered a criminal act.

In so-called "free" countries like Canada and Germany, for instance, if I say that the Holocaust of World War II didn't happen, I'll be jailed. For SAYING that.

In China, if I say that Mao was a punk and worthless slaughterer of innocents, I'll be jailed. Just for SAYING it.

Here in America, if I say that I think that the president deserves to be shot, I can be arrested. Just for SAYING that.

Do you get the point? How long before just mentioning the Koran, just talking about what you wish you could do to someone, just saying something politically incorrect... How long before EVERYTHING we say could be considered unlawful? How long before conversations are limited to "Hi. See you later" with anything else being a criminal offense?

You may think I'm over-reacting or joking, but look at Germany circa 1925. Then in 1930. Then 1935. Then 1940. Then 1945. What you'll see is the very progression of what I just spelled out.

Now we're on it again. For some, they want to outlaw the Koran and ja

By Dajjal in response to MacAaron

Mon, 03 Aug 2009 00:40:28 GMT

This is not about scripture or casual conversation, nor is it political. Its about the lyrics of a song in which murderous intent was clearly expressed. Whether or not the song was intended for publication is not entirely clear. It was recorded and burned to cd, apparently by the author.

The marginality of the issue is beyond dispute. The status of the act as a criminal offense is questionable at best. It is not a lyric I want playing in my head. If I had children, I would not want them to hear and be influenced by it.

At minimum, it puts a big scarlet letter M on the songwriter's forehead as a warning to every law enforcement officer he has had an encounter with.

By MacAaron in response to Dajjal

Mon, 03 Aug 2009 01:01:30 GMT

Maybe I was too wordy because you seem to have missed the whole point of my response. Here's a sum-up: speech is speech, no matter what it's "classified" as otherwise.

Words don't hurt people. Unless those people WANT to be hurt by them. In that case, it's their problem, not the speaker's.

The most fundamental price of freedom is tolerance. You have to tolerate other people's freedoms. Otherwise, you don't have them either.

There's no "middle ground" on this. It's a black and white, have it or don't have it issue.

By Dajjal in response to MacAaron

Mon, 03 Aug 2009 05:33:38 GMT

This reply is on the wrong node because I can't locate the right one. Words don't cause physical injury, but they can provoke it, and sometimes they give advance warning of it. According to Moe, eloquent speech is as powerful as magic. Music can have a hypnotic effect, particularly with repeated exposure and combined with psychoactive chemicals.

By Robehren in response to Anomaly

Mon, 03 Aug 2009 05:51:38 GMT

I think in principal I agree with your assessment of the "thin skinned". For the most part those of us on the street would shrug off this type of thing with little thought. I guess the use of the term "law enforcement" was meant for those who are higher up the political ladder but are tainting the whole profession with these types of decisions.

By anonymous

Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:35:34 GMT

They were wrong point blank for putting him in jail for expressing how he feels. It is a blatant disregard for his right to freedom of speech.

By anonymous

Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:41:32 GMT

If I were named in a song about killing me, I would feel personally threatened.

By SKline89

Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:35:53 GMT

if some1 really was goin 2 kill a cop do u think they wud put it on a song?..they wud be tha first suspect..n i dont think this guy is that stupid.almost every hiphop artist has rapped about violence

By SKline89

Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:39:40 GMT

if some1 really was goin 2 kill a cop do u think they wud put it on a song?..they wud be tha first suspect..n i dont think this guy is that stupid.almost every hiphop artist has rapped about violence..n violent acts.. the fuccin pigs do harass ppl alot especially those among tha black communities..n the first amendement is tha most important amendement..thats y its number 1..even tho police violate somebodys rights everyday, this is by far tha most stupid reason 2 be in a state prison for...wut has america come 2....HOME OF THE FREEE...do u remember that????

By anonymous

Sat, 13 Feb 2010 10:45:15 GMT

he must be really stupid to let them do that to him even if he did have a public atty he should have told him what to say since it's obvious that the atty did not know how to handle his case he should have handled his own thats the problem with our young men they can write a rap throw a ball dribble a ball but when it comes to a lil common sense they have none i blame the women around them for lettin them do what they want instead of what they need and have to do