NationStates Jolt Archive

(my rough translation of a Dutch language article)

A police judge in the Northern province of Friesland has acquitted a 24 year old inhabitant of Joure today on surprising grounds. On 23 September he called two police officers "Nazis". Apparently the involved civil servants were unaware of the spelling of this word; the report claims the police officers were called 'naties' (nations). The judge did not consider this to be a criminal offence.

A natie cannot be compared with a Nazi given the different meanings of these words. A "surprising" verdict, says jucidal expert T van der Groot. According to him this is a typical case of what in jargon is known as "apparent miswriting" - a spelling error."

"In such a case 99 out of a hundred judges say: no problem." Van der Groot thinks it is "very brave" that the judge has acquitted the suspect this time. University teacher Kwakman of the National University of Groningen suspects a "bit of a fun-loving mood" in the judge "who perhaps has had more of these badly drawn up reports on his desk lately and thought of this as an opportunity to get back at the prosecution office."

*tries a bump, for randomness' sake*

Please, someone, save me from my own country, please...

Our entire country is going to hell over these "form-fouten".

Please, someone, save me from my own country, please...

Our entire country is going to hell over these "form-fouten".

*grin*

Well, it is also testimony to the incompetence of our police corps. Really. If you cannot even spell the insult...

I agree with the legal professional guy that it was a bold decision to make and I'm not feeling particularly remorseful that this "criminal" runs free ;)

Yessss, nobody has GODWINed this thread yet but meee!

Now how do you spell 'nazi' again.
N
a or o?
s? c? z? t?

Ah fuck it.

*grin*

Well, it is also testimony to the incompetence of our police corps. Really. If you cannot even spell the insult...

I agree with the legal professional guy that it was a bold decision to make and I'm not feeling particularly remorseful that this "criminal" runs free ;)

Maybe not now, but you will be. As lawyers see criminals aquitted for harmless errors, it will be used on increasingly more serious crimes, until one day you pick up the papers and see murderers and rapists being set free because of the precedent has been set. It is how lawyers work, and while you can't blame them I would definately have a problem with a judge that compromised the integrity of their office for the purpose of improving the quality of report writing.

GODWIN

(hey I don't know how you "godwin" a thread, I just like the guy:D )

GODWIN

(hey I don't know how you "godwin" a thread, I just like the guy:D )
Beat you to it a few posts ago

(my rough translation of a Dutch language article)

A police judge in the Northern province of Friesland has acquitted a 24 year old inhabitant of Joure today on surprising grounds. On 23 September he called two police officers "Nazis". Apparently the involved civil servants were unaware of the spelling of this word; the report claims the police officers were called 'naties' (nations). The judge did not consider this to be a criminal offence.

A natie cannot be compared with a Nazi given the different meanings of these words. A "surprising" verdict, says jucidal expert T van der Groot. According to him this is a typical case of what in jargon is known as "apparent miswriting" - a spelling error."

"In such a case 99 out of a hundred judges say: no problem." Van der Groot thinks it is "very brave" that the judge has acquitted the suspect this time. University teacher Kwakman of the National University of Groningen suspects a "bit of a fun-loving mood" in the judge "who perhaps has had more of these badly drawn up reports on his desk lately and thought of this as an opportunity to get back at the prosecution office."and who says spelling isn't important. ;)

*debates making a 'grammar Nazi' joke*

*decides suicide would be the less painful option*

On topic-ness please people?

Wow! time to brush off that pic. Where is it? Aha!
http://www.childrensmuseum.org/special_exhibits/good_grief/images/logo_goodgrief.jpg

On topic-ness please people?
What topic? And why the Hell is calling a few cops "Nazis" a crime?
"How dare you accuse us of being agents for an oppressive government? You're going to jail for that!"

What topic? And why the Hell is calling a few cops "Nazis" a crime?
"How dare you accuse us of being agents for an oppressive government? You're going to jail for that!"

I could look it up for you if you want.

"Insulting an officer in function." Or something similar.

On topic-ness please people?
I thought the Topic was that "gud speling iz empourtaint" :D

I thought the Topic was that "gud speling iz empourtaint" :D

Indeed, I can claim ignorance towards the English language; cause I'm Dutch and all that jazz.

Maybe not now, but you will be. As lawyers see criminals aquitted for harmless errors, it will be used on increasingly more serious crimes, until one day you pick up the papers and see murderers and rapists being set free because of the precedent has been set. It is how lawyers work, and while you can't blame them I would definately have a problem with a judge that compromised the integrity of their office for the purpose of improving the quality of report writing.

But what is a "harmless" error? Is the judge supposed to assume that there has been made a mistake in this case, especially if it is a punishable offense to call the officers "Nazi" but not to call them "Naties"?

But what is a "harmless" error? Is the judge supposed to assume that there has been made a mistake in this case, especially if it is a punishable offense to call the officers "Nazi" but not to call them "Naties"?

Well... if the case is important it is ESPECIALLY vital that the prosecution files an intelligible report, don't you think? This is also in reply to Liverbreath... if there is a murder case or something, I would not feel comfortable if the prosecution did not even run a spellcheck (let alone a fact-check) of the report they are submitting to the court.

Fiddlebottoms: Dumpsterdam is right. The offence would be "Insulting an officer in function", which I feel is one of our less vital laws. I heard they do not have them in Sweden, were you can actually spit at police officers unpunished. Meh.

And what is this Godwin thing?

What topic? And why the Hell is calling a few cops "Nazis" a crime?
"How dare you accuse us of being agents for an oppressive government? You're going to jail for that!"

I'm pretty sure in Germany that would be considered a crime. AFAIK, even saying "Nazi" in Germany would at least get one a stern reprimand. Not so sure about the rest of the world.

"Point taken, but his post was only about 10 IQ points up from "Me no compare! They not real!"

Calling that intelligent is silly."

this quote gose well with this post.

To be fair should people with that much carelessness be upkeeping the law?

The Dutch police arn't armed are they?

To be fair should people with that much carelessness be upkeeping the law?

The Dutch police arn't armed are they?


Wait a sec.. I thought Brittish weren't armed.

Wait a sec.. I thought Brittish weren't armed.

the average police officer isnt armed

But what is a "harmless" error? Is the judge supposed to assume that there has been made a mistake in this case, especially if it is a punishable offense to call the officers "Nazi" but not to call them "Naties"?

Harmless errors are spelling, typing, and punctuation errors in legal documents and official written reports. There was a time before the dumbing down of society in the US, that such an error in court documents, legal contracts etc, rendered it null and void, and the release of violent criminals on technicalities became epidemic.
Fortunately some fairly intelligent people figured out human errors were bound to occur, and the simple clairification given under oath by the reporting officer was enough to correct the record.
Personally, I think it is a crime in and of itself to criminalize free speech, and it well could be that the judge used the oppourtuntity to express his own dissatisfaction with it. Even so, that is not his job, nor is it his right under the justice systems that I am familiar with. A judge should be subservient to the letter of the law. They are not tools for his personal goals.

Dutch police officers being armed depends on the situation. I've seen them be armed patrolling big cities, not so much sitting behind desks in our little rural village.

Harmless errors are spelling, typing, and punctuation errors in legal documents and official written reports. There was a time before the dumbing down of society in the US, that such an error in court documents, legal contracts etc, rendered it null and void, and the release of violent criminals on technicalities became epidemic.
Fortunately some fairly intelligent people figured out human errors were bound to occur, and the simple clairification given under oath by the reporting officer was enough to correct the record.
Personally, I think it is a crime in and of itself to criminalize free speech, and it well could be that the judge used the oppourtuntity to express his own dissatisfaction with it. Even so, that is not his job, nor is it his right under the justice systems that I am familiar with. A judge should be subservient to the letter of the law. They are not tools for his personal goals.

Nope. They are not. However, one should be able to expect very basic reading skills in a report like this. This isn't about whether to use the -d or -dt suffix but the very word on which the case was based. And frankly, with the advent of things like spellcheckers in computers this becomes even more embarrasing.

the average police officer isnt armed

Hmmm I see.. for a min their I thought Brittish Police officer
only use beating stick.

brittish Cop: Red rover red rover send the bad guy over.

[QUOTE=Knootian East Indies]Well... if the case is important it is ESPECIALLY vital that the prosecution files an intelligible report, don't you think? This is also in reply to Liverbreath... if there is a murder case or something, I would not feel comfortable if the prosecution did not even run a spellcheck (let alone a fact-check) of the report they are submitting to the court.
/QUOTE]

I agree, however, spellchecking is a fairly recent advance in technology and before that it was called "proofing". Even the best proof readers at the newspapers I worked for missed an average of 4 in 100 mistakes. You also have to take into consideration another aspect that is and was more common than we might like to think and that is the intentional altering of the written word by those who have a personal agenda. It is and was a very simple matter for a clerk, typist, secretay, stenographer to insert anything they like into a document and change the entire meaning of it. Without harmless error laws, abuse of the system will become a problem in any system.

Nope. They are not. However, one should be able to expect very basic reading skills in a report like this. This isn't about whether to use the -d or -dt suffix but the very word on which the case was based. And frankly, with the advent of things like spellcheckers in computers this becomes even more embarrasing.

Without a doubt one of the most embarring things I ever had to deal with was approving a subordinates written report without reading it first. I made the mistake of assuming that since we had recently provided spell checkers for all officers they would want to use them. I found out the hard way that some people have absolutely no problem coming off as a total dipshit, if it will save them half an ounce of effort.

To be fair should people with that much carelessness be upkeeping the law?

The Dutch police arn't armed are they?

The hell they are! :)

What do you think this is, the UK?

Whatever the other Dutch guys may be saying, insulting an officer on duty (don't speak legalese) isn't a crime in the Netherlands, it's a minor offense. Infraction, or whatever it's called in the US.

And yes, our cops are armed. And yes, civilians are aware that their impressive sidearm's primary function is to keep up the officers' self esteem as a substitute for spelling abilities.

Hence it was a "Politierechter" or police judge. :)