This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Sometimes, Justice is Done

2

Comments

  • Using (Age/2)+7 means that if you are under age 14 you have to date people older than yourself.
  • Using (Age/2)+7 means that if you are under age 14 you have to date people older than yourself.
    Then we should add the caveat that people under fourteen shouldn't date.

    If (Age/2)+7>Age, 0, (Age/2)+7)
  • edited October 2007
    No. The statute under which he was convicted required a physical injury or sodomy.
    I forgot that this took place below the Mason-Dixon line. The laws up here are somewhat different.
    In Ohio, this problem is circumvented by saying that a minor may have consensual sex with someone within X years of their own age, regardless of whether that second person is a minor.
    That's the trend lately, and it makes a lot of sense.
    Wow. That looks like an ad hominem and straw man wrapped up in one little trollish package.
    Lighten up. I think the guys can handle it if I point out a flaw in their argument. After all, I'm the only one who has ever brought these two together! ;-)
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • In Ohio, this problem is circumvented by saying that a minor may have consensual sex with someone within X years of their own age, regardless of whether that second person is a minor.
    Unlike the other law that says miners can only have sex with other miners if both consent (no age limit).
  • Also, how close were each of them to 16? Did he just turn 17? Was she about to turn 16?

    What if they were both 16 and having sex and then one of them turns 17, is it now illegal?

    To my understanding, sex outside of marriage, period, is illegal. It just isn't prosecuted.
  • Also, how close were each of them to 16? Did he just turn 17? Was she about to turn 16?

    What if they were both 16 and having sex and then one of them turns 17, is it now illegal?
    To my understanding, sex outside of marriage, period, is illegal. It just isn't prosecuted.
    And what's the basis of this understanding? Last I'm pretty sure consent is what matters, not marriage.
  • To my understanding, sex outside of marriage, period, is illegal. It just isn't prosecuted.
    Yeah, maybe in Iran.
  • To my understanding, sex outside of marriage, period, is illegal. It just isn't prosecuted.
    Actually, I think that's the law in Utah. But that's... you know. Utah.
  • To my understanding, sex outside of marriage, period, is illegal. It just isn't prosecuted.
    Actually, I think that's the law in Utah. But that's... you know. Utah.
    I thought Utah law was that you can't have sex until you have two wives, you know, in case something goes wrong and you need a backup.
  • To my understanding, sex outside of marriage, period, is illegal. It just isn't prosecuted.
    Actually, I think that's the law in Utah. But that's... you know. Utah.
    I thought Utah law was that you can't have sex until you have two wives, you know, in case something goes wrong and you need a backup.

    Ha ha, those jokes are getting old. I can never tell if people actually believe that when they say it.

    I guess it is only a state law. Utah law Not sure whether there are any other states with similar laws.
  • More justice. It almost gives one cause for hope . . . Ehh, maybe not quite yet.
  • edited November 2007
    There is one big question about this case that no article seems to cover: whether or not the picketing was done on public property.

    If they picketed in a private cemetery during a private funeral, then I have no sympathy for them.

    If, on the other hand, they picketed from a public sidewalk or on the side of a public street, then I support their freedom of speech no matter how abhorrent it was.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • Isn't a cemetery private property (except Arlington)? A funeral is not a place for protest.
  • edited November 2007
    Isn't a cemetery private property?
    Most are. They tend to border public streets and/or sidewalks, though. I'm trying to figure out if they protested from within the cemetery or from the sidewalk adjacent to the cemetery.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • edited November 2007
    There is one big question about this case that no article seems to cover: whether or not the picketing was done on public property.

    If they picketed in a private cemetery during a private funeral, then I have no sympathy for them.

    If, on the other hand, they picketed from a public sidewalk or on the side of a public street, then I support their freedom of speech no matter how abhorrent it was.
    The article links to the Complaint. They were at the church where the funeral was held and they posted pics on the internet. The Complaint included counts for defamation, invasion of privacy (intrusion upon seclusion and publicity given to private life), intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy. It wouldn't be a defense if the "protest" was held on public property. In fact, one of the elements of defamation is the publishing of the statements. The protest was one method of publishing the statements.

    If I walk around on the sidewalk and say defamatory things about you, my speech is not protected from your subsequent lawsuit.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • edited November 2007
    I just looked at the complaint. The defamation allegation deals primarily with what they printed on a webpage. I also didn't realize that they made specific statements concerning the killed kid and his father. I don't think that a simple sign that says "God Hates Fags" is defamatory. However, if there are specific allegations concerning this kid and his father, that may cross the line. Just my opinion.

    However, I'm not really sure if the damages are appropriate. After all, do you really expect anyone to believe what these people said? Everyone knew that they were wackos.

    I also agree with Rym that punitive damages should go towards a fund that tries to address the underlying harm.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • edited November 2007
    I just looked at the complaint. The defamation allegation deals primarily with what they printed on a webpage.
    No. Read Paragraph 30. The defamation count includes all actions taken by the defendants dealing with the plaintiffs.
    However, I'm not really sure if the damages are appropriate. After all, do you really expect anyone to believe what these people said? Everyone knew that they were wackos.
    It's not just that anyone would believe them, it's the invasion of privacy and the conspiracy to commit the invasion.
    I also agree with Rym that punitive damages should go towards a fund that tries to address the underlying harm.
    The underlying harm was suffered by the plaintiffs. The money should go to them.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • edited November 2007
    No. Read paragraph 30. The defamation count includes all actions taken by the defendants.
    That's a general statement. The specifics of the complaint deal with what was printed on the webpage. The complaint does not list one single specific statement made during the funeral.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • Read paragraph 21. They made statements at the funeral. Paragraph 30 includes the website statements and the funeral statements. The plaintiffs are not required to state with specificity the funeral statements in the Complaint. Those were facts that would have been discoverable and would have been admitted at trial.
  • No. Read paragraph 30. The defamation count includesallactions taken by the defendants.
    That's a general statement. The specifics of the complaint deal with what was printed on the webpage. The complaint does not list one single specific statement made during the funeral.
    That might just be a case of the website being a more permanent and accurate representation of what they have said. Unless they had a recording of what was said at the funeral the defendant could dodge.
  • Well.. call me crazy, but if they were able to list several specific defamatory comments from the webpage, but none from the funeral, my comment that the defamation action was based primarily on the webpage stands.
  • edited November 2007
    It's moot in this particular case, because the award was based on one of the counts of invasion of privacy and the count of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

    It looks like the defamation count was dismissed before trial. Here's a slightly better article. Here is another. It looks like the judge was persuaded the statements were protected, or maybe that the statements were simply not defamatory, or both. It'd be nice to get a copy of that opinion. I'll bet it also has something to do with the pursuit of their wacky religion.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • Interesting. See... I had a gut feeling that the defamation action was weak. The statements were so wacky, that it was hard to take them with any level of seriousness.
  • edited November 2007
    It's gotta be (1) there's at least some political component of the speech + (2) their wacky religious beliefs inspired the speech + (3) no one would have changed their opinion of the plaintiff based on the speech.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • 1) Yes.
    2) Yes.
    3) Yes.
  • edited November 2007
    To my understanding, sex outside of marriage, period, is illegal. It just isn't prosecuted.
    I just wish to say that you can in fact rape your wife.
    You can be charged with rape if you do not have consent to have sex with anyone.
    You can be charged with rape even if the woman doesn't say no, as long as she never said yes.
    You can be charged with rape if you knowingly used a drug to lower the others standards.
    You can be charged with rape if the recipient was knowingly under the influence of a drug and you abused that.

    Now regarding the charging of men more harshly then women. They do this to be "fair". The ramifications for sex are more harsh on the woman (She can get pregnant) then for the man. Everyone will agree that the ramifications for sex are more harsh on a woman naturally... though not many will consent on a way to balance jail time to pregnancy. Thus they use the law to "equal out" the punishment.

    I may not agree, but I can see the mentality they used and though there needs to be a better way, I can not think of one.

    [edit] Oh and I'm terrible at understanding inflection and tone online... and since I do not know you all well enough personally to know when you are joking or not, I may be making a fool out of myself. [/edit]
    Post edited by Mosquitoboy on
  • edited November 2007

    You can be charged with rape if you knowingly used a drug to lower the others standards.
    What if I knowingly used a drug to reduce my standards?

    Now regarding the charging of men more harshly then women. They do this to be "fair". The ramifications for sex are more harsh on the woman (She can get pregnant) then for the man.Everyonewill agree that the ramifications for sex are more harsh on a woman naturally... though not many will consent on a way to balance jail time to pregnancy. Thus they use the law to "equal out" the punishment.
    So you think nine months of pregnancy is worse than 18+ years of child support? I thought woman were equal?

    What if it was anal rape?
    What if a guy raped a guy?
    What if a woman raped a man with the sole purpose of getting pregnant so she could get a free ride for 18+ years?
    Equality, like justice, should be blind.
    Post edited by HMTKSteve on
  • edited November 2007
    What if I knowingly used a drug to reduce my standards?
    Your creepy :P
    Uhh I do not know of any cases that this idea became involved in. But I would guess you could then be raped, unless you consented that you were using the drug to have sex before using the drug. For they would refer back to you being under the influence of a drug and thus not being able to consent for sex... Though laws change fast and I am not a law student.
    So you think nine months of pregnancy is worse than 18+ years of child support?
    I thought woman were equal?
    What if it was anal rape?
    What if a guy raped a guy?
    What if a woman raped a man with the sole purpose of getting pregnant so she could get a free ride for 18+ years?
    Equality, like justice, should be blind.
    Taking child support into account is ridiculous, for each partner pays $. The one away from the child pays child support, the one with the child uses their own money to also support the child. Child support is the approximate amount of money that each parent would pay to raise the child if they were both there. (or so I have learned)

    Equality is definitely under question in life recently. Are races completely equal, are genders completely equal? Until these points can be made clear scientifically... the laws will be odd regarding them. I can not say anything besides they are more based on politics then science at this point. ^_^

    I bring up these questions a lot. I do not know of any court rulings that can answer these questions for you, but there may be cases.

    "What if a woman raped a man with the sole purpose of getting pregnant so she could get a free ride for 18+ years?"

    I believe she would be charged with rape. He wouldn't be paying child support, for he was raped. If he consented, then it would be interesting, though I would imagine he would be paying.

    Oh and a mother being given child support does not give her a "free ride". The amount of money the man sends her is based upon the amount he would be spending if they were together, and the law suggests that the woman would also be working (this is vague, what is working...) to help the child.

    (Take everything with a grain of salt, I am not a lawyer, nor am I a law student, just a college student who took a few law classes and liked this subject.)
    Post edited by Mosquitoboy on
  • I'm glad that the crazy people got the book thrown at them. They needed to face reality. The thing I am wondering about most is how they are going to pay the 11 million to the family.
  • Child support is the approximate amount of money that each parent would pay to raise the child if they were both there. (or so I have learned)
    You know that in the majority of marriages/pregnancies resulting in birth the man makes most of the money, of course depending on the woman and man in question. Now take the case where a man and woman have sex and they get a child. Against their will, but the man, because the woman doesn't want to/is a bitch, will take the kid in and will take care of it once it no longer needs breast feeding. Do you think the woman will pay the same amount of money as the man if the roles were 'normal' (iow the opposite of this example)? Most probably she can't make enough money (depending on if she ever studied or not) to live herself and pay the same amount of money for child support. The solution to this is making paychecks of women the same as their male counterparts in the same function.
Sign In or Register to comment.