Alaska Darin Posted July 3, 2005 Posted July 3, 2005 Probably he was pretty upset that he almost hit a kid. This stupid girl almost gets herself killed and his life would've turned into a living nightmare (including the guilt of living with the fact that someone died after being hit by the car you were driving). Being upset enough to grab someone's arm after something like that makes sense. Attacking someone with an aluminum baseball bat for grabbing someone's arm does not. 374059[/snapback] Well, we are talking stojan lahjik here.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted July 3, 2005 Posted July 3, 2005 Probably he was pretty upset that he almost hit a kid. This stupid girl almost gets herself killed and his life would've turned into a living nightmare (including the guilt of living with the fact that someone died after being hit by the car you were driving). Being upset enough to grab someone's arm after something like that makes sense. Attacking someone with an aluminum baseball bat for grabbing someone's arm does not. I'd be willing to bet that the girl said something to make him want to grab her arm. But naw, everyone's kids are angels.
stevestojan Posted July 3, 2005 Posted July 3, 2005 Probably he was pretty upset that he almost hit a kid. This stupid girl almost gets herself killed and his life would've turned into a living nightmare (including the guilt of living with the fact that someone died after being hit by the car you were driving). Being upset enough to grab someone's arm after something like that makes sense. Attacking someone with an aluminum baseball bat for grabbing someone's arm does not. 374059[/snapback] Despite the fact that you used the BOLD option, surprisingly, it didn't have any effect on my opinion on this (and let me tell you, the bold option often gets me!). I take back nothing I said. If I had a daughter, and some man grabbed her arm, he wouldn't walk for a while. You obviously don't agree with this. That's your opinion and that's fine.
stevestojan Posted July 3, 2005 Posted July 3, 2005 Well, we are talking stojan lahjik here. 374061[/snapback] Logic of which several different judges have agreed with. But more than likey, you're right Darin...
BillnutinHouston Posted July 3, 2005 Posted July 3, 2005 Anyone named "Fitzroy" should automatically have to register as a sex offender. 373547[/snapback] Did he choose that name, Kasper?
Alaska Darin Posted July 3, 2005 Posted July 3, 2005 Logic of which several different judges have agreed with. But more than likey, you're right Darin... 374064[/snapback] More than likey? You'll have to explain the "several different judges" thing. If you meant because in this particular case they labled this guy a sex offender, then you've officially taken over the spot BF recently vacated as resident board-on. Did you enjoy a nice bowl of retatta this morning?
IDBillzFan Posted July 3, 2005 Posted July 3, 2005 The problem is this is not a sex crime. Being labeled a sex offender is something that will follow him his entire life. You can't tell me that they couldn't find something else to charge him with. 373663[/snapback] Exactly. The punishment in no way fits the crime because the social stigma associated with this person will be devastating to his life. He'll be registered, and whereever he goes, he'll have to contend with Megan's Law and the websites throughout the US that show exactly where an offender lives, their address, age, a photo, etc. He'll be in constant fear of his life. For grabbing a girl's arm? !@#$ing travesty.
Ghost of BiB Posted July 3, 2005 Posted July 3, 2005 So, I'm standing on the sidewalk - bus is coming, little girl starts to run into the street and I grab her arm to keep her from doing so. I'm now a predator? Going to be a lot of squashed kids lying around.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted July 3, 2005 Posted July 3, 2005 So, I'm standing on the sidewalk - bus is coming, little girl starts to run into the street and I grab her arm to keep her from doing so. I'm now a predator? Of course! Because you'll soon be molesting girls. You just saved her to molest her later. It makes PERFECT sense!
stevestojan Posted July 3, 2005 Posted July 3, 2005 So, I'm standing on the sidewalk - bus is coming, little girl starts to run into the street and I grab her arm to keep her from doing so. I'm now a predator? Going to be a lot of squashed kids lying around. 374079[/snapback] Yeah, that's exactly what Im saying. This guy didn't do anything like that. He proactively stopped his car, put it in park, got out, grabbed the girl and held her there. It wasnt a reaction to save her. But for now, I'm going to a party and then Mickey Ratts. Im much more interested in drinking right now than arguing this ridiculous point with you blockheads. Happy Fourth.
Fezmid Posted July 3, 2005 Posted July 3, 2005 Yeah, that's exactly what Im saying. This guy didn't do anything like that. He proactively stopped his car, put it in park, got out, grabbed the girl and held her there. It wasnt a reaction to save her. But for now, I'm going to a party and then Mickey Ratts. Im much more interested in drinking right now than arguing this ridiculous point with you blockheads. Happy Fourth. 374082[/snapback] You're the only one with the opinion that you should be able to kneecap the guy, but we're the blockheads?! CW
stevestojan Posted July 3, 2005 Posted July 3, 2005 You're the only one with the opinion that you should be able to kneecap the guy, but we're the blockheads?! 374083[/snapback] Yes. Happy Fourth
Fezmid Posted July 3, 2005 Posted July 3, 2005 Happy Fourth 374085[/snapback] Not really - I'm working, probably today and tomorrow, and no extra pay... CW
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 3, 2005 Posted July 3, 2005 Logic of which several different judges have agreed with. But more than likey, you're right Darin... 374064[/snapback] And it's REALLY okay with you that the guy's labelled for life as a sex offender for a non-sexual crime? Really, how are you not seeing that?
Fezmid Posted July 3, 2005 Posted July 3, 2005 And it's REALLY okay with you that the guy's labelled for life as a sex offender for a non-sexual crime? Really, how are you not seeing that? 374091[/snapback] Yes, and even the JUDGE says that it wasn't a sexual crime, but that his hands are tied because of the law (supposedly). CW
Tux of Borg Posted July 3, 2005 Author Posted July 3, 2005 Not really - I'm working, probably today and tomorrow, and no extra pay... CW 374090[/snapback] Not a member of the union, eh.
UConn James Posted July 3, 2005 Posted July 3, 2005 You know, people should spend as much time discussing the very real problem of actual sex offenders and them repeating their crime multiple fuggin' times but still being let out, much like only the most recent one in Idaho. Instead of debating the threshhold requirements of assaultdom, maybe legislatures should wake up to the fact that sex offenders do not rehabilitate and make some laws around that. Maybe then everybody would be a little less paranoid and reactive.
Tux of Borg Posted July 3, 2005 Author Posted July 3, 2005 You know, people should spend as much time discussing the very real problem of actual sex offenders and them repeating their crime multiple fuggin' times but still being let out, much like only the most recent one in Idaho. Instead of debating the threshhold requirements of assaultdom, maybe legislatures should wake up to the fact that sex offenders do not rehabilitate and make some laws around that. Maybe then everybody would be a little less paranoid and reactive. 374098[/snapback] I honesty don't know what our legislatures are thinking. I think some of them are just too out of touch with today's society. The latest child porn law quickly comes to mind. It sounds great but it really does nothing to stop the problem.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 3, 2005 Posted July 3, 2005 Yes, and even the JUDGE says that it wasn't a sexual crime, but that his hands are tied because of the law (supposedly). CW 374095[/snapback] Not "supposedly". They are. The applicable statutes say that unlawful restraint, being detaining a child with or without the child's consent, is always a sexual offense. I just looked it up. Blisteringly stupid set of statutes, if you ask me. I've got to ask my sister (a defense attorney) about this to be sure, but it looks set up so that in Illinois you can effectively be found guilty of a sexual offense without actually being charged with one...as the "unlawful restraint" statute is completely separate from the sexual offenses statutes. Like I said, blisteringly stupid. Of course, this is from the same state where it's illegal to expose wheat to sulfur...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 3, 2005 Posted July 3, 2005 You know, people should spend as much time discussing the very real problem of actual sex offenders and them repeating their crime multiple fuggin' times but still being let out, much like only the most recent one in Idaho. 374098[/snapback] That would be a little easier if THE LAW could decide who is and is not an actual sex offender.
Recommended Posts