Did you pursue jury nullification, or did the judge strictly inform you that he would dismiss you if you did?
Jury nullification is a serious right/authority of the jury. The fact that many judges will underhandedly remove potential nullifying jurors is nothing short of, in itself, felonious.
I know this is out on a limb for the sake of debate... but...
Dismissing entirely the possibility that the parents recognized that the young girl actually expressed an interest in having contact, au naturale, with the man?
It's been shown that children as young as 3 or 4 will begin taking a pleasure response from stimulating their sexual organs. Is it really unnatural for a 10-year old to want to have sexual contact?
Or does society have a dirty little secret that's used to rile up the ignorant masses? Check out the numbers. Average age of first contact for girls is down to 15. That's the AVERAGE. The same studies which report the average age also report that the average psychological health, related to sex, is normal.
Actually, if you research the background on this particular case, you'll find out that, if you were the parent of the girl, you were donating your girl to this man.
What? You didn't know? The parents knew that the man had an "interest" in their daughter. The parents knew that, when their daughter stayed with the man, they slept in the same bed. If this man is convicted then the parents should also be charged with some sort of child endangerment. At the point that the evidence is at this really becomes a case of parental consent.
Oh. You didn't know that? Well, that's what you get for reading the carefully selected news in the public media.
No joke. There's a vast difference between the fellow in Alabama who was caught (with his wife) using a 3 year old girl and a 17 year old boy as sex-toys... and a 20-something who happens to pick up a 17-year old with a fake ID who's practically jumping on him.
In the eyes of the law, however, they're both the same.
At the same time, if you search for the sexual habits of society, you'll find that the average age of first sexual contact has gone down to age 15--and girls are increasingly getting younger than guys on that scale.
And the background to the story--that the parents of the girl knew that the man had an "interest" in their daughter and were well aware that, when they allowed their daughter to visit with the man, they often slept in the same bed together?
At that point doesn't it become a case of parental consent? Shouldn't the parents be charged with some sort of child endangerment?
It's already that way in most US states. Being in possession of more than one quantity in separate packaging is automatically "intent to distribute".
You know how I learned to roll joints? I had 2 oz. and sat down and rolled both ounces into joints. Had I been caught (with over 100 joints) I would be sitting in prison for a long time.
If it were not for these motherfuckers who download, buy or otherwise obtain kiddie porn, there would not be a market for it
What kind of fantasy planet do you live on? Males have been poking themselves into anything that moves since before apes became human.
Animals don't know much about age. If the female raises the tail then the male delivers. And, in many cases, the male won't even wait for a raised tail.
I saw a discovery channel edition of the mating habits of bears. The only recourse that the female bear had, if she no longer wanted to be bred, was to sit down. The only reason why she won is because the male bear lacked the dexterity to hold her in a proper position. You should've seen how hard it tried, though.
As a point of contention for the sake of argument...
Say you take a prison population, deprived of human sexual/emotional contact, and begin feeding them porn. Provide them with access to pornography.
How long, how many years, before even the most retarded individual grows tired/bored/desensitized of looking at 18+ porn and begins looking at 18- porn? My guess is less than 5 years.
Not that this was the case in point. The case in point involved a well-connected individual with plenty of access to "normal" sexual outlets. A truly despicable person to turn to kiddie porn.
It's the same argument for food. If you haven't eaten in 20 days even the beatle on the side of the road begins to look like a gourmet meal.
Unless you're an experienced grower, or phenomenally lucky, one or two plants will get you approximately jack shit.
When you hear of people being busted for grow operations they're typically caught with 50+ plants. The reason is that a vast majority of plants, unless you've bought premium seed, grow up to look like a tomato plant without tomatoes--all stem and leaves.
You were smoking a joint? Off to the gas chambers with you!
Before you go, though, could you please hook me up with your supplier? Apparently my priveleges for enjoying life have been revoked because I haven't even been able to find a street-monkey who will sell to me in over two years. And it's seriously pissing me off.
With the very important distinction that I paid $200 for MS EULA to tell me that they are not responsible for broken software. The GPL didn't charge me anything. Even if Debian had cost $20 I still wouldn't be really concerned about bugs. $200, though, is a significant portion of most people's monthly incomes.
Whenever I see rebates I think to myself,"There's a scam here. I don't know what it is but I know it's here."
Whether it's a scam with the personal data that you submit, or if the scam is in what they do with the money before they give it back, or if the scam is hidden even deeper. There's a scam and I have no interest in participating.
I talked with attorneys after the fact. I was told by four different lawyers that, to the vast majority of judges, a police officer's claim of any type of investigation (investigating a call about fireworks, in my case) is more than enough to substantiate obstruction of justice. Verifying the name which I gave the police officer is more than enough reason to request verifiable ID in the eyes of the courts.
The tickets probably weren't valid--but most courts will act like they are unless you can afford some pricey legal representation and have the time to waste playing the courtroom game. At this point the American system of police and courts has become little different than piracy, highway robbery, or extortion. Your rights mean nothing if they can be so easily circumvented with the blessings of the bench.
What about the apartment search? You feel that a police officer has the right to simply come into your home at any time to pick up evidence that he needs in his investigation? That one should be obvious but yet there was not a single attorney who would give me any more than a shake of the head,"Sorry. He was conducting an investigation."
It is no different. Once you identify yourself then the officer is conducting an investigation into the authenticity of the information which you have given him. In pursuit of that investigation he can demand to see proper ID. If you do not produce the requested ID you can be ticketed for obstruction of justice.
Armchair patriots... Holy cats. Have you ever actually tried to exercise your rights as a citizen? The police are not all Officer Friendly. Many police officers are having bad days and looking for someone to take it out on. Their authority gives them endless avenues of personal amusement especially if they encounter a citizen who poses no real threat (no weapons, light build, complacent, no money for expensive legal representation).
Since I don't happen to have a few extra thousand dollars laying around to afford decent counsel on demand for things like this I followed the advice of the public defender and went the no contest route.
You're right. Other than the second pic in the article, which I didn't really look too closely at, there really isn't any specific mention in the article that it was an unmanned vehicle.
After looking at the second pic, however, it's pretty obvious that he wasn't inside at the time. Can you imagine if he was--say if it were something like a bathysphere? Talk about an adrenalin rush.
Most people have other things to do in life other than study law. Once enough laws are made it's just a fact that not every citizen can know every law. "Ignorance of the law", when even one branch of the law can fill hundreds of volumes of books, is a perfectly acceptable position. A law need not be unpublished to be secret (though I think that's what the fellow was suggesting). A law can very easily be secret if it's buried deep enough and known only to a few who specifically study that area.
Ha! You have no idea just how wrong you are. Maybe you should quit being an armchair patriot and actually try it sometime.
The police have a million legal ways around everything and they are not afraid to use them. An officer can detain you indefinitely on the street. If you turn to leave he can restrain you. It's all based on this thing called "obstruction of justice" and if he can even remotely justify that he imagined that something suspicious was going on then that's all he needs.
I would love to agree with you. I really would. But I have this thing called experience which you do not.
The officer was answering a call about fireworks which are heavily regulated in many US localities. I was on the sidewalk when he arrived and he began a conversational discourse with me. He asked for my name. I gave it. He asked for my ID and I said,"Sir, please allow me to go into my apartment and retrieve my ID. It's in my coat." The officer replied,"No. You cannot go anywhere." The conversation went in circles for 10-15 minutes at which point he asked for my ID again, and again I requested that I be allowed to retrieve my ID from my coat inside my apartment. Again the request was refused. The conversation went in circles for 10-15 minutes. I asked the officer if I was being arrested or charged with a crime. He answered,"No." At that point I turned to leave and was physically restrained by the officer. He had his partner hold me (lightly by the shoulder, but enough to let me know that I wasn't going anywhere) while he then entered my apartment, picked up my coat, conducted a brief search of my apartment, and returned with my ID--verifying the name which I had given to him.
I was ticketed for obstruction of justice and resisting arrest and spent the weekend in a bullpen until I could make a court appearance on the following Monday. I would've been better off taking the $85 dollar ticket for the firecrackers. Instead we went through the conversation route because I'd put the firecrackers away when I saw the squad car turning down the street.
In all reality, if a police officer wants to, he can detain you indefinitely in a public place. If you try to leave you will be restrained. If you resist the restraint you will be ticketed for assaulting a police officer. If he asks for your name you must give it. Once you give him a name he may ask for ID in the course of investigation to verify the information you have given to him. If you fail to produce ID you can be ticketed for obstruction of justice.
All of this is perfectly legal. Once you are in a public place, if an officer takes any interest in you (real or imagined), you are at his mercy. He can demand that you chat with him for days (theoretically) because, as long as you're in a public place, he's conducting an investigation.
Certainly if the situation becomes ridiculous the officer may be required to justify his investigation (which is easily done). I personally know that he doesn't ever need to justify himself for at least 3 hours.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you pursue jury nullification, or did the judge strictly inform you that he would dismiss you if you did?
Jury nullification is a serious right/authority of the jury. The fact that many judges will underhandedly remove potential nullifying jurors is nothing short of, in itself, felonious.
I know this is out on a limb for the sake of debate... but...
Dismissing entirely the possibility that the parents recognized that the young girl actually expressed an interest in having contact, au naturale, with the man?
It's been shown that children as young as 3 or 4 will begin taking a pleasure response from stimulating their sexual organs. Is it really unnatural for a 10-year old to want to have sexual contact?
Or does society have a dirty little secret that's used to rile up the ignorant masses? Check out the numbers. Average age of first contact for girls is down to 15. That's the AVERAGE. The same studies which report the average age also report that the average psychological health, related to sex, is normal.
Actually, if you research the background on this particular case, you'll find out that, if you were the parent of the girl, you were donating your girl to this man.
What? You didn't know? The parents knew that the man had an "interest" in their daughter. The parents knew that, when their daughter stayed with the man, they slept in the same bed. If this man is convicted then the parents should also be charged with some sort of child endangerment. At the point that the evidence is at this really becomes a case of parental consent.
Oh. You didn't know that? Well, that's what you get for reading the carefully selected news in the public media.
No joke. There's a vast difference between the fellow in Alabama who was caught (with his wife) using a 3 year old girl and a 17 year old boy as sex-toys... and a 20-something who happens to pick up a 17-year old with a fake ID who's practically jumping on him.
In the eyes of the law, however, they're both the same.
At the same time, if you search for the sexual habits of society, you'll find that the average age of first sexual contact has gone down to age 15--and girls are increasingly getting younger than guys on that scale.
And the background to the story--that the parents of the girl knew that the man had an "interest" in their daughter and were well aware that, when they allowed their daughter to visit with the man, they often slept in the same bed together?
At that point doesn't it become a case of parental consent? Shouldn't the parents be charged with some sort of child endangerment?
Or is society really on a blindfolded witch hunt?
A little dab'll do ya. HAHAHA!
It's already that way in most US states. Being in possession of more than one quantity in separate packaging is automatically "intent to distribute".
You know how I learned to roll joints? I had 2 oz. and sat down and rolled both ounces into joints. Had I been caught (with over 100 joints) I would be sitting in prison for a long time.
Animals don't know much about age. If the female raises the tail then the male delivers. And, in many cases, the male won't even wait for a raised tail.
I saw a discovery channel edition of the mating habits of bears. The only recourse that the female bear had, if she no longer wanted to be bred, was to sit down. The only reason why she won is because the male bear lacked the dexterity to hold her in a proper position. You should've seen how hard it tried, though.
Suddenly I'm beginning to understand why I'm treated like a felon wherever I go.
When I was 18, a freshman in college, my girlfriend (who attended a neighboring college), was 17.
In Indiana that wasn't legal and carried stiff penalties.
As a point of contention for the sake of argument...
Say you take a prison population, deprived of human sexual/emotional contact, and begin feeding them porn. Provide them with access to pornography.
How long, how many years, before even the most retarded individual grows tired/bored/desensitized of looking at 18+ porn and begins looking at 18- porn? My guess is less than 5 years.
Not that this was the case in point. The case in point involved a well-connected individual with plenty of access to "normal" sexual outlets. A truly despicable person to turn to kiddie porn.
It's the same argument for food. If you haven't eaten in 20 days even the beatle on the side of the road begins to look like a gourmet meal.
Unless you're an experienced grower, or phenomenally lucky, one or two plants will get you approximately jack shit.
When you hear of people being busted for grow operations they're typically caught with 50+ plants. The reason is that a vast majority of plants, unless you've bought premium seed, grow up to look like a tomato plant without tomatoes--all stem and leaves.
You were smoking a joint? Off to the gas chambers with you!
Before you go, though, could you please hook me up with your supplier? Apparently my priveleges for enjoying life have been revoked because I haven't even been able to find a street-monkey who will sell to me in over two years. And it's seriously pissing me off.
With the very important distinction that I paid $200 for MS EULA to tell me that they are not responsible for broken software. The GPL didn't charge me anything. Even if Debian had cost $20 I still wouldn't be really concerned about bugs. $200, though, is a significant portion of most people's monthly incomes.
Whenever I see rebates I think to myself,"There's a scam here. I don't know what it is but I know it's here."
Whether it's a scam with the personal data that you submit, or if the scam is in what they do with the money before they give it back, or if the scam is hidden even deeper. There's a scam and I have no interest in participating.
Are you suggesting that there's some grand conspiracy at work here and the attorneys that I spoke with are "in on it"?
I talked with attorneys after the fact. I was told by four different lawyers that, to the vast majority of judges, a police officer's claim of any type of investigation (investigating a call about fireworks, in my case) is more than enough to substantiate obstruction of justice. Verifying the name which I gave the police officer is more than enough reason to request verifiable ID in the eyes of the courts.
The tickets probably weren't valid--but most courts will act like they are unless you can afford some pricey legal representation and have the time to waste playing the courtroom game. At this point the American system of police and courts has become little different than piracy, highway robbery, or extortion. Your rights mean nothing if they can be so easily circumvented with the blessings of the bench.
What about the apartment search? You feel that a police officer has the right to simply come into your home at any time to pick up evidence that he needs in his investigation? That one should be obvious but yet there was not a single attorney who would give me any more than a shake of the head,"Sorry. He was conducting an investigation."
It is no different. Once you identify yourself then the officer is conducting an investigation into the authenticity of the information which you have given him. In pursuit of that investigation he can demand to see proper ID. If you do not produce the requested ID you can be ticketed for obstruction of justice.
Armchair patriots... Holy cats. Have you ever actually tried to exercise your rights as a citizen? The police are not all Officer Friendly. Many police officers are having bad days and looking for someone to take it out on. Their authority gives them endless avenues of personal amusement especially if they encounter a citizen who poses no real threat (no weapons, light build, complacent, no money for expensive legal representation).
Since I don't happen to have a few extra thousand dollars laying around to afford decent counsel on demand for things like this I followed the advice of the public defender and went the no contest route.
Does it matter?
You're right. Other than the second pic in the article, which I didn't really look too closely at, there really isn't any specific mention in the article that it was an unmanned vehicle.
After looking at the second pic, however, it's pretty obvious that he wasn't inside at the time. Can you imagine if he was--say if it were something like a bathysphere? Talk about an adrenalin rush.
I bet the guy's drawers looked like they'd been squirted with octopus ink when he returned to shore.
Most people have other things to do in life other than study law. Once enough laws are made it's just a fact that not every citizen can know every law. "Ignorance of the law", when even one branch of the law can fill hundreds of volumes of books, is a perfectly acceptable position. A law need not be unpublished to be secret (though I think that's what the fellow was suggesting). A law can very easily be secret if it's buried deep enough and known only to a few who specifically study that area.
Ha! You have no idea just how wrong you are. Maybe you should quit being an armchair patriot and actually try it sometime.
The police have a million legal ways around everything and they are not afraid to use them. An officer can detain you indefinitely on the street. If you turn to leave he can restrain you. It's all based on this thing called "obstruction of justice" and if he can even remotely justify that he imagined that something suspicious was going on then that's all he needs.
I would love to agree with you. I really would. But I have this thing called experience which you do not.
The officer was answering a call about fireworks which are heavily regulated in many US localities. I was on the sidewalk when he arrived and he began a conversational discourse with me. He asked for my name. I gave it. He asked for my ID and I said,"Sir, please allow me to go into my apartment and retrieve my ID. It's in my coat." The officer replied,"No. You cannot go anywhere." The conversation went in circles for 10-15 minutes at which point he asked for my ID again, and again I requested that I be allowed to retrieve my ID from my coat inside my apartment. Again the request was refused. The conversation went in circles for 10-15 minutes. I asked the officer if I was being arrested or charged with a crime. He answered,"No." At that point I turned to leave and was physically restrained by the officer. He had his partner hold me (lightly by the shoulder, but enough to let me know that I wasn't going anywhere) while he then entered my apartment, picked up my coat, conducted a brief search of my apartment, and returned with my ID--verifying the name which I had given to him.
I was ticketed for obstruction of justice and resisting arrest and spent the weekend in a bullpen until I could make a court appearance on the following Monday. I would've been better off taking the $85 dollar ticket for the firecrackers. Instead we went through the conversation route because I'd put the firecrackers away when I saw the squad car turning down the street.
In all reality, if a police officer wants to, he can detain you indefinitely in a public place. If you try to leave you will be restrained. If you resist the restraint you will be ticketed for assaulting a police officer. If he asks for your name you must give it. Once you give him a name he may ask for ID in the course of investigation to verify the information you have given to him. If you fail to produce ID you can be ticketed for obstruction of justice.
All of this is perfectly legal. Once you are in a public place, if an officer takes any interest in you (real or imagined), you are at his mercy. He can demand that you chat with him for days (theoretically) because, as long as you're in a public place, he's conducting an investigation.
Certainly if the situation becomes ridiculous the officer may be required to justify his investigation (which is easily done). I personally know that he doesn't ever need to justify himself for at least 3 hours.