Yes, he basically did. He continued to publicize the event after it was lawfully shut down. Including falsely stating that Bieber was inside signing autographs after the event was canceled when Bieber never even made it inside.
"James Roppo, 44, the senior vice president of sales at Island Def Jam Records, sent out Internet messages to over 3,000 fans that Justin Bieber was signing autographs even after police dispersed the crowd, cops said."
""They are not allowing me to come into the mall. if you dont leave I and my fans will be arrested as the police just told us," Bieber tweeted."
Umm.. Maybe something like: Any order which in it's self is not unlawful.
IE: You! Keep pressing on this guy's chest for CPR. Lawful order. You! Help me load up my car with TVs from this store I just broke into. Unlawful order.
Is there a clear definition? Probabaly not. Laws are VERY gray, and even when they are not the interpretation of them is.
This is a good point, but I think that right may apply only after you've been arrested (can someone with a legal background verify?)
IANAL: Basically yes, Miranda only applies when both 1) Suspect is in custody*, 2) Suspect is being interrogated*. On TV shows when people are reading rights right when arresting is BS, officers don't need to do that unless they plan on questioning the person on the way to the station, which is a bad idea.
*: How these terms are defined varies from state to state, custody can be as little as an officer being in the room to suspect placed under arrest. Something along the lines of 'suspect not free to leave' might be a good middle-ground. Interrogated normally means something like: "being asked questions which are likely to invoke an self-incriminating response". "What is your name?", "You know Sally?", "What is your SSN?" Would normally be ok. "Did you kill bob?", "Why did you take the money?", "How much drugs do you have on you?", would be bad.
Again, all this varies widely from state to state.
No where in here does it say they can compel you to say anything. In all of these cases, they can only compel silence.
Not sure either way, but that doesn't really matter. They could be arresting him for basically inciting a riot and gave him one chance to fix it without being arrested.
Dude (to crowd): "Riot!" Crowd: *riots* Cop: Tell them to quit it or be arrested. Dude (to cop): Hell no! Cop: *arrests*
Perfectly legal and a valid arrest. (No idea what happened, I didn't even RTFA. But most the time the 'A' doesn't know what happened either, I'm talking theory here.)
I have no idea if this is the case, but all states don't have the same laws or breakdown of laws. Maybe in that state inciting a riot is like conspiracy to commit a crime, and all parties get charged with the event. Or maybe he just met the rules for exact wording of assault, it could be something similar to: "A person is guilty of the offense of Assault in the Blank degree if a person: a)blah b)blah or c) Intentionally or knowingly does any action which has a reasonable chance of causing bodily harm to an individual."
Or the media could have it wrong, they don't get copies of the police reports for on-going investigations, they get their information from 2nd or 3rd hand sources who are very often wrong.
Again I have no idea if any of these are the case, but it's safe to assume when you have a high profile situation like this the decision to arrest someone and what for is not being made by a random beat officer. Instead it would most likely be made by someone higher in command and someone fairly knowledgeable.
Because an officer LIED and claimed the dog smelled drugs in the trunk. Those drugs were not there. First they committed an illegal search of his trunk, then they made a false claim of drugs that did not exist, and finally they arrested an innocent man without probable cause or warrant.
Furthermore he's a fucking church reverend! Might as well take Reverend Marlin Luther King Jr and start beating him just because he asked to end segregation.
They didn't say that there were drugs or a person in the car, just that the dog alerted, dogs are not 100%, whether or not that actually happened, you nor I will ever know. Officers say it did, guy says it didn't (and he didn't even know what to look for).
Based on the officer's statements he did have probable cause for the arrest: the dog alerting in combination with his evasive and uncooperative attitude, it would lead a reasonable person to think he was hiding something.
Yes it is unfortunate that 'being evasive and uncooperative' contributes to probable cause, but it does. There is tons of case-law to support it.
He would have been much better off by cooperating with the arrest and then if it turned out to be false, sue the police department for wrongful arrest. But by resisting the arrest, he validated it.
As citizens we are not allowed to resist arrest, even a wrongful one (like all things related to the law, some exceptions exist). If you don't like that, write your congress person, or become a lawyer or something.
His profession as a reverend is irrelevant, reverends do many illegal and immoral things, they are human just like everyone else. Even if it was a 'get-out-of-jail-free' card, the officers at the time don't exactly have the ability to verify that, who is to say the person they have in front of them is an actual reverend or a drug mule saying he is a reverend with some faked documents.
Regarding your ramblings about the gas chambers: Grow up, he is a US citizen on US soil he had zero chance of being put in a gas chamber that day.
I can't tell if you are kidding or not. Most fire departments have volunteers in them, just not enough of them to run all the stations in the country 24/365. How many stations do you think you could run on a volunteer basis on Christmas eve/day. What do you do on Superbowl Sunday when the volunteers call in sick? Hope there are no fires?
BTW: All the equipment and training are paid for by tax-payers and I think they also get things like medical and maybe retirement (as incentives to have volunteers).
An airport is private property, they can search you if they want, the whole search and seizure thing only applies to government agents (tsa doesn't count, oddly).
And of course you don't have to answer the question, even if they took him to the police station he wouldn't need to, the only time he may need to would be at trial.
He was placed under arrest, when you are placed under arrest you don't get to sit around questioning the arrest to decide if you really are. If you look at the DPS footage you can't really tell what was happening when he was getting "beaten", was he resisting or fighting back? The only thing you can tell is that they broke the window and tazed him after he was being completely uncooperative.
A few notes: 1) In the first vid he talks about not hearing the dogs bark for the alert, they normally don't, that is only on TV. Barking would be a clear giveaway to the 'bad-guy'. 2) He asks about having the dog come out again, it doesn't work that way, there are no 'do-overs', if the dog didn't alert, would they go two-out-of-three next? 3) He is clearly being a jerk (second video 0:00-0:45) he repeatedly asks the officer questions and then when the officer is calmly trying to respond to them he asks another one. 4) Failure to obey an officer is an arrestable offense in many locations when it comes to vehicles.
Not knowing how laws work and then resisting a valid arrest and not liking the consequences is stupid.
Police officers do not want to wrongly arrest people, by resisting (not getting out of the car) he gave them exactly what they wanted, a reason to arrest him.
i work with truckies all day every day, and i can assure you it's because about 90% of them are morons who NEED constant monitoring. it's just like running a prep school [fragment]. while it'd be a valid whinge that they do get the shit end of the stick, all i say is, you should have paid more attention in class and avoided having to do shit house jobs like drive trucks because your a dumbass.
officers advised Bungie officials to transport the gun more discretely in the future.
No. Read the Constitution mister cop (you know, that thing you pledged to protect, but apparently never read). Carrying a flag, sign, or other item is considered "symbolic speech" according to the Supreme Court and therefore protected.
Geez, relax. He advised them, not ordered. The guy wasn't carrying it in a show of constitutional rights to bare arms, just moving it. He was simply stating that "You know you have people around here that over react, unless you want us showing up again for this, please cover it when you transport it." Because when they get called again, they would have to go down again and bother Bungie again.
The law often doesn't make a distinction between making your victim think you have a deadly weapon and actually possessing one.
Sorta, for example robbery and terrorist threatening are upgraded if you imply you have a weapon, whether or not you do. But Hawaii has a special crime just for doing a felony while you have a gun that only counts if it's a real gun. I think there is a federal charge for basically the same thing.
Can't you read? I fully acknowledged that prohibition didn't and wouldn't work. I was merely replying to that one over-used point: "Why have pot illegal when alcohol is worse.".
Like it or not, society would be way better off if drugs and alcohol were not used, logistically speaking I know this is not possible. Your life might not be as good, and for this I'm sorry. Ingesting a chemical that instructs your body to feel good is a lazy way to be happy, IMHO.
Here is Hawaii a huge chuck of violent and property crimes are because of meth users. Drunk driving causes about 15,000 deaths a year in the US alone.
But that's ok, it is their freedom to kill and injure others.
I can come home and destroy my liver after a long day at work, but I can't sit down and enjoy some THC?
It always bugs me when people use this argument, I would be all for banning alcohol as well, it does far more damage then other drugs, but unfortunately they tried at already and it didn't work.
I support it because we're continuously tracked every day -- you can bet that if the police wants, they'll get a complete record of where you've been, by tracking the usage of your credit card, monthly tube pass, video surveillance and so on.
You watch way too much TV. The average beat officer can get your address that you put on file with the DMV and information from prior police encounters, that is about it. The feds may be able to get all the fun stuff, maybe a high ranking detective with a warrant. Private companies these days are very strict about information they give out due to litigation. I bet if you were to call your own credit card company pretending to be a police officer asking for your credit card history, they would just tell you to forward the warrant to their legal department.
You are incorrect. The 4th amendment illegal search and seizure only applies to law enforcement.
From Wikipedia:
The Fourth Amendment only applies to governmental actors. It does not guarantee a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by private citizens or organizations. The Bill of Rights originally only restricted the power of the federal government. However, in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment is applicable to state governments by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, all state constitutions contain an analogous provision.
Normally stores will not press the issue due to fear of litigation. But if they wanted to there are certain procedures they can do to arrest shoplifters.
If the law says the judge can award $80k per violation, while outrageous, there is nothing retarded about a judge doing so. Remember, you don't change laws in court, you change them in Congress.
In fact it is the courts fault that laws are bad, most laws are vague, or at the very least have some wiggle room. Check the laws for your state/county, it's easy to play 'what if X happened while Y' and stump police officers and lawyers unless it's been tested in court. From my understanding, what happened here is that there is no upper cap written into the law (which makes sense). Judges/juries decide what happens in those untested areas of the law. At some point the law might be revised, but normally things like this create precedent which other trials will cite.
What is scary about this ruling is that if it sticks they could just start asking for that much from everyone from the start, and other judges might just let it thru because "Hey, judge Bob said it was ok."
Legally (in America anyway) you are still responsible for the fact that you are/were selling stolen goods.
At least in Hawaii (I expect most other states to be the same.) you are not responsible. There is a stipulation in the theft section (remember... copyright infringement != theft.) that absolves people of guilt if they did not know if was stolen.
Not knowing that rape or murder is illegal in America doesn't mean that you get by with it because you came from another country. Ignorance is not an excuse as far as the law is concerned.
True, it is expected that one knows the laws. But there are many cases in the law where ignorance of certain facts is an affirmative defense.
This is regards to criminal matters, civilly they would be open to being sued.
I used to work for Pacific Pulmonary Services - until recently, the largest Durable Medical Equipment provider in the country. In the time I was there they switched from Office XP to OO, without so much as an mass email to the people, just in an update to the system over a weekend.
In our office noone else even noticed that they changed it, and the only issue I can recall was about some random macro in an.xls not working.
Not saying that company should or could do that. But I don't think the costs attributed to OO are as high when it really comes down to it. IMHO
I would rather live in the current world (environmentally speaking) and have an honest scientific community/government than have a cleaner, dishonest world.
I want mine in binary. I want a text file ("firemen1.txt") of 1's and 0's that match the order of the pits from the CD, except the 1's are 0's, and 0's are 1's [I encrypt all my music... What you don't?]
See, until they provide it in !CD-Binary@1BPC I'll just have to go torrent it because... oh wait... Flac is lossless, since I am a big enough geek to want my music in such an obsure format like !CD-Binary@1BPC I will certainly have the ability to convert it to the format.
A bit noisy, no? Or was the 1st gen Xbox quieter than today's?
Very much so. It has one small fan (I had to get right next to it to hear it). There is a setting that spools down the harddrive when watching something.
I agree with you but that is not why I am replying. And I am aware that this is off topic.
(obviously I didn't read the article yet either:),
Not trying to be a grammar nazi, is that correct? I've always wondered how that should be expressed. This seems wrong because you closed the parentheses and used a emoticon at once. But I can't think of a better solution.
(obviously I didn't read the article yet either:))
- Looks silly.
(obviously I didn't read the article yet either:) )
- A little better, but still odd, and wasteful.
[obviously I didn't read the article yet either:)]
- Maybe viable, but still odd.
I think I normally just rewrite the statement with the emoticon to be not at the end. How does everyone else handle it?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, he basically did. He continued to publicize the event after it was lawfully shut down. Including falsely stating that Bieber was inside signing autographs after the event was canceled when Bieber never even made it inside.
"James Roppo, 44, the senior vice president of sales at Island Def Jam Records, sent out Internet messages to over 3,000 fans that Justin Bieber was signing autographs even after police dispersed the crowd, cops said."
""They are not allowing me to come into the mall. if you dont leave I and my fans will be arrested as the police just told us," Bieber tweeted."
(emphasis mine)
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/11/21/2009-11-21_island_def_jam_records_exec_.html#ixzz0Xq2XpBMl
Umm.. Maybe something like: Any order which in it's self is not unlawful.
IE:
You! Keep pressing on this guy's chest for CPR. Lawful order.
You! Help me load up my car with TVs from this store I just broke into. Unlawful order.
Is there a clear definition? Probabaly not. Laws are VERY gray, and even when they are not the interpretation of them is.
This is a good point, but I think that right may apply only after you've been arrested (can someone with a legal background verify?)
IANAL: Basically yes, Miranda only applies when both 1) Suspect is in custody*, 2) Suspect is being interrogated*. On TV shows when people are reading rights right when arresting is BS, officers don't need to do that unless they plan on questioning the person on the way to the station, which is a bad idea.
*: How these terms are defined varies from state to state, custody can be as little as an officer being in the room to suspect placed under arrest. Something along the lines of 'suspect not free to leave' might be a good middle-ground. Interrogated normally means something like: "being asked questions which are likely to invoke an self-incriminating response". "What is your name?", "You know Sally?", "What is your SSN?" Would normally be ok. "Did you kill bob?", "Why did you take the money?", "How much drugs do you have on you?", would be bad.
Again, all this varies widely from state to state.
No where in here does it say they can compel you to say anything. In all of these cases, they can only compel silence.
Not sure either way, but that doesn't really matter. They could be arresting him for basically inciting a riot and gave him one chance to fix it without being arrested.
Dude (to crowd): "Riot!"
Crowd: *riots*
Cop: Tell them to quit it or be arrested.
Dude (to cop): Hell no!
Cop: *arrests*
Perfectly legal and a valid arrest.
(No idea what happened, I didn't even RTFA. But most the time the 'A' doesn't know what happened either, I'm talking theory here.)
I have no idea if this is the case, but all states don't have the same laws or breakdown of laws. Maybe in that state inciting a riot is like conspiracy to commit a crime, and all parties get charged with the event. Or maybe he just met the rules for exact wording of assault, it could be something similar to:
"A person is guilty of the offense of Assault in the Blank degree if a person:
a)blah
b)blah
or c) Intentionally or knowingly does any action which has a reasonable chance of causing bodily harm to an individual."
Or the media could have it wrong, they don't get copies of the police reports for on-going investigations, they get their information from 2nd or 3rd hand sources who are very often wrong.
Again I have no idea if any of these are the case, but it's safe to assume when you have a high profile situation like this the decision to arrest someone and what for is not being made by a random beat officer. Instead it would most likely be made by someone higher in command and someone fairly knowledgeable.
>>>>>He was placed under arrest
Because an officer LIED and claimed the dog smelled drugs in the trunk. Those drugs were not there. First they committed an illegal search of his trunk, then they made a false claim of drugs that did not exist, and finally they arrested an innocent man without probable cause or warrant.
Furthermore he's a fucking church reverend!
Might as well take Reverend Marlin Luther King Jr and
start beating him just because he asked to end segregation.
They didn't say that there were drugs or a person in the car, just that the dog alerted, dogs are not 100%, whether or not that actually happened, you nor I will ever know. Officers say it did, guy says it didn't (and he didn't even know what to look for).
Based on the officer's statements he did have probable cause for the arrest: the dog alerting in combination with his evasive and uncooperative attitude, it would lead a reasonable person to think he was hiding something.
Yes it is unfortunate that 'being evasive and uncooperative' contributes to probable cause, but it does. There is tons of case-law to support it.
He would have been much better off by cooperating with the arrest and then if it turned out to be false, sue the police department for wrongful arrest. But by resisting the arrest, he validated it.
As citizens we are not allowed to resist arrest, even a wrongful one (like all things related to the law, some exceptions exist). If you don't like that, write your congress person, or become a lawyer or something.
His profession as a reverend is irrelevant, reverends do many illegal and immoral things, they are human just like everyone else. Even if it was a 'get-out-of-jail-free' card, the officers at the time don't exactly have the ability to verify that, who is to say the person they have in front of them is an actual reverend or a drug mule saying he is a reverend with some faked documents.
Regarding your ramblings about the gas chambers: Grow up, he is a US citizen on US soil he had zero chance of being put in a gas chamber that day.
I can't tell if you are kidding or not. Most fire departments have volunteers in them, just not enough of them to run all the stations in the country 24/365. How many stations do you think you could run on a volunteer basis on Christmas eve/day. What do you do on Superbowl Sunday when the volunteers call in sick? Hope there are no fires?
BTW: All the equipment and training are paid for by tax-payers and I think they also get things like medical and maybe retirement (as incentives to have volunteers).
Those constitutional guarantees didn't help this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMB6L487LHM
Or this guy (note this happened *nowhere near* the border): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUzd7G875Hc
An airport is private property, they can search you if they want, the whole search and seizure thing only applies to government agents (tsa doesn't count, oddly).
And of course you don't have to answer the question, even if they took him to the police station he wouldn't need to, the only time he may need to would be at trial.
Actual footage of INNOCENT citizen being beaten: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgejD6c-9YA&feature=related
He was placed under arrest, when you are placed under arrest you don't get to sit around questioning the arrest to decide if you really are. If you look at the DPS footage you can't really tell what was happening when he was getting "beaten", was he resisting or fighting back? The only thing you can tell is that they broke the window and tazed him after he was being completely uncooperative.
A few notes:
1) In the first vid he talks about not hearing the dogs bark for the alert, they normally don't, that is only on TV. Barking would be a clear giveaway to the 'bad-guy'.
2) He asks about having the dog come out again, it doesn't work that way, there are no 'do-overs', if the dog didn't alert, would they go two-out-of-three next?
3) He is clearly being a jerk (second video 0:00-0:45) he repeatedly asks the officer questions and then when the officer is calmly trying to respond to them he asks another one.
4) Failure to obey an officer is an arrestable offense in many locations when it comes to vehicles.
Not knowing how laws work and then resisting a valid arrest and not liking the consequences is stupid.
Police officers do not want to wrongly arrest people, by resisting (not getting out of the car) he gave them exactly what they wanted, a reason to arrest him.
i work with truckies all day every day, and i can assure you it's because about 90% of them are morons who NEED constant monitoring. it's just like running a prep school [fragment]. while it'd be a valid whinge that they do get the shit end of the stick, all i say is, you should have paid more attention in class and avoided having to do shit house jobs like drive trucks because your a dumbass.
Hey Pot, have you met Kettle?
officers advised Bungie officials to transport the gun more discretely in the future.
No. Read the Constitution mister cop (you know, that thing you pledged to protect, but apparently never read). Carrying a flag, sign, or other item is considered "symbolic speech" according to the Supreme Court and therefore protected.
Geez, relax. He advised them, not ordered. The guy wasn't carrying it in a show of constitutional rights to bare arms, just moving it. He was simply stating that "You know you have people around here that over react, unless you want us showing up again for this, please cover it when you transport it." Because when they get called again, they would have to go down again and bother Bungie again.
The law often doesn't make a distinction between making your victim think you have a deadly weapon and actually possessing one.
Sorta, for example robbery and terrorist threatening are upgraded if you imply you have a weapon, whether or not you do. But Hawaii has a special crime just for doing a felony while you have a gun that only counts if it's a real gun. I think there is a federal charge for basically the same thing.
Can't you read? I fully acknowledged that prohibition didn't and wouldn't work. I was merely replying to that one over-used point: "Why have pot illegal when alcohol is worse.".
Like it or not, society would be way better off if drugs and alcohol were not used, logistically speaking I know this is not possible. Your life might not be as good, and for this I'm sorry. Ingesting a chemical that instructs your body to feel good is a lazy way to be happy, IMHO.
Here is Hawaii a huge chuck of violent and property crimes are because of meth users. Drunk driving causes about 15,000 deaths a year in the US alone.
But that's ok, it is their freedom to kill and injure others.
I can come home and destroy my liver after a long day at work, but I can't sit down and enjoy some THC?
It always bugs me when people use this argument, I would be all for banning alcohol as well, it does far more damage then other drugs, but unfortunately they tried at already and it didn't work.
I support it because we're continuously tracked every day -- you can bet that if the police wants, they'll get a complete record of where you've been, by tracking the usage of your credit card, monthly tube pass, video surveillance and so on.
You watch way too much TV. The average beat officer can get your address that you put on file with the DMV and information from prior police encounters, that is about it. The feds may be able to get all the fun stuff, maybe a high ranking detective with a warrant. Private companies these days are very strict about information they give out due to litigation. I bet if you were to call your own credit card company pretending to be a police officer asking for your credit card history, they would just tell you to forward the warrant to their legal department.
From Wikipedia:
The Fourth Amendment only applies to governmental actors. It does not guarantee a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by private citizens or organizations. The Bill of Rights originally only restricted the power of the federal government. However, in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment is applicable to state governments by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, all state constitutions contain an analogous provision.
Normally stores will not press the issue due to fear of litigation. But if they wanted to there are certain procedures they can do to arrest shoplifters.
If the law says the judge can award $80k per violation, while outrageous, there is nothing retarded about a judge doing so. Remember, you don't change laws in court, you change them in Congress.
In fact it is the courts fault that laws are bad, most laws are vague, or at the very least have some wiggle room. Check the laws for your state/county, it's easy to play 'what if X happened while Y' and stump police officers and lawyers unless it's been tested in court. From my understanding, what happened here is that there is no upper cap written into the law (which makes sense). Judges/juries decide what happens in those untested areas of the law. At some point the law might be revised, but normally things like this create precedent which other trials will cite.
What is scary about this ruling is that if it sticks they could just start asking for that much from everyone from the start, and other judges might just let it thru because "Hey, judge Bob said it was ok."
IANAL of course.
Legally (in America anyway) you are still responsible for the fact that you are/were selling stolen goods.
At least in Hawaii (I expect most other states to be the same.) you are not responsible. There is a stipulation in the theft section (remember... copyright infringement != theft.) that absolves people of guilt if they did not know if was stolen.
Not knowing that rape or murder is illegal in America doesn't mean that you get by with it because you came from another country. Ignorance is not an excuse as far as the law is concerned.
True, it is expected that one knows the laws. But there are many cases in the law where ignorance of certain facts is an affirmative defense.
This is regards to criminal matters, civilly they would be open to being sued.
I like the achievements, I really hope they stick around. Much better then posting a whole mess of 'funny' stories.
That is awesome. Until you know, move your head.
I used to work for Pacific Pulmonary Services - until recently, the largest Durable Medical Equipment provider in the country. In the time I was there they switched from Office XP to OO, without so much as an mass email to the people, just in an update to the system over a weekend.
In our office noone else even noticed that they changed it, and the only issue I can recall was about some random macro in an .xls not working.
Not saying that company should or could do that. But I don't think the costs attributed to OO are as high when it really comes down to it. IMHO
Because it's dishonest?
I would rather live in the current world (environmentally speaking) and have an honest scientific community/government than have a cleaner, dishonest world.
I want mine in binary. I want a text file ("firemen1.txt") of 1's and 0's that match the order of the pits from the CD, except the 1's are 0's, and 0's are 1's [I encrypt all my music... What you don't?]
See, until they provide it in !CD-Binary@1BPC I'll just have to go torrent it because... oh wait... Flac is lossless, since I am a big enough geek to want my music in such an obsure format like !CD-Binary@1BPC I will certainly have the ability to convert it to the format.
Nevermind.
A bit noisy, no? Or was the 1st gen Xbox quieter than today's?
Very much so. It has one small fan (I had to get right next to it to hear it). There is a setting that spools down the harddrive when watching something.
So is your credit card number. But you don't sell your credit card number to people.
Not saying I agree with the GP but comparing something that is designed to be sold to people and sensitive data or trade secrets is silly.
[citation needed]
I agree with you but that is not why I am replying. And I am aware that this is off topic.
(obviously I didn't read the article yet either :),
Not trying to be a grammar nazi, is that correct? I've always wondered how that should be expressed. This seems wrong because you closed the parentheses and used a emoticon at once. But I can't think of a better solution.
(obviously I didn't read the article yet either :))
- Looks silly.
(obviously I didn't read the article yet either :) )
- A little better, but still odd, and wasteful.
[obviously I didn't read the article yet either :)]
- Maybe viable, but still odd.
I think I normally just rewrite the statement with the emoticon to be not at the end. How does everyone else handle it?