A trial court doing their job is not supposed to overturn laws that are valid. There job is to APPLY the law. Are you a big supporter of judicial activism? You must be. You are probably fine with adding things to and taking things from the constitution also. The law probably has a mandatory statement about registering. It is NOT the judges job to overturn every law that they disagree with. Especially at the trial court level.
Touch a minor while lecturing them, become a sex offender?
- Thread starter Jadecristal
- Start date
- Status
A trial court doing their job is not supposed to overturn laws that are valid. There job is to APPLY the law. Are you a big supporter of judicial activism? You must be. You are probably fine with adding things to and taking things from the constitution also. The law probably has a mandatory statement about registering. It is NOT the judges job to overturn every law that they disagree with. Especially at the trial court level.
Monkeyleg
Member.
A neighbor of mine has been doing a lot of favors for me--mowing the lawn, etc--while I've been under the doctor's "restricted activity" orders.
I've been wanting to thank him by giving him a surprise thank-you gift. Some delicious steaks, or maybe lobster. Problem is, I don't know what he likes.
Today I saw his 12 year-old daughter, and was going to ask her to step into our yard for a minute, so I could ask if she knew what foods her dad loved.
Instead, I asked her in the middle of the street, where her father might well see and hear our conversation.
Why? Because this stupid court decison, and some of the posts on this thread, made me very afraid to even get within speaking distance of a 12 year-old girl.
Art, thanks for the historical perspective. About 1955 or so, I threw a rock at a woman's car as she drove by. She got out, grabbed me by the arm, and dragged me to my house, where she told my mother what happened. I was the one who got punished, not her.
I've been wanting to thank him by giving him a surprise thank-you gift. Some delicious steaks, or maybe lobster. Problem is, I don't know what he likes.
Today I saw his 12 year-old daughter, and was going to ask her to step into our yard for a minute, so I could ask if she knew what foods her dad loved.
Instead, I asked her in the middle of the street, where her father might well see and hear our conversation.
Why? Because this stupid court decison, and some of the posts on this thread, made me very afraid to even get within speaking distance of a 12 year-old girl.
Art, thanks for the historical perspective. About 1955 or so, I threw a rock at a woman's car as she drove by. She got out, grabbed me by the arm, and dragged me to my house, where she told my mother what happened. I was the one who got punished, not her.
joab:
Yes, you have stated that. But you have also stated many times that the guy makes a mistake so, therefore, he ultimately gets what's coming to him. Don't try to wiggle out of this one.
If I was a kid, or adult, and some stranger grabbed a hold of me-- whether I deserved it or not-- my natural reaction would be to break free. I don't understand how you can read any further into it.
Sorry, joab, scolding a child doesn't amount to violation, whether the child was grabbed or not. Where did you grow up, in a Hindu Commune or something?
1st of all, grabbing someone does not equal physical discipline. How was this girl grabbed? Was she grabbed as in a whole body grab, or did the guy grab her arm with his hand. That's the way I picture it. That doesn't constitute battery in my book, and it certainly doesn't equal an abusive beating by your Dad.
Yes, you have stated that. But you have also stated many times that the guy makes a mistake so, therefore, he ultimately gets what's coming to him. Don't try to wiggle out of this one.
If I was a kid, or adult, and some stranger grabbed a hold of me-- whether I deserved it or not-- my natural reaction would be to break free. I don't understand how you can read any further into it.
Sorry, joab, scolding a child doesn't amount to violation, whether the child was grabbed or not. Where did you grow up, in a Hindu Commune or something?
1st of all, grabbing someone does not equal physical discipline. How was this girl grabbed? Was she grabbed as in a whole body grab, or did the guy grab her arm with his hand. That's the way I picture it. That doesn't constitute battery in my book, and it certainly doesn't equal an abusive beating by your Dad.
Oh please! Resisting or rejecting asinine laws-- as this one obviously is-- is totally different than misinterpreting the Constitution. If anything, the law as it exists is obviously unconstitutional.
There are perhaps millions of absurd state laws in this country. If they don't ever get overturned with insane cases like this one, then true justice can never prevail.
You should know better.
armedcitizen
Member
+1
Your book doesnt match the law of the US since 1776 then.
Lets get some definitions out here that are US common law since the inception of our country. This is so there is none of this "battery and assault are different today than in my day" garbage.
Battery is an unlawful application of force to the person of another resulting in either bodily injury OR an offensive touching.
Assault is an intentional creation other than by mere words of a reasonable apprehension in the MIND OF THE VICTIM of imminent bodily harm.
He is arguably guilty of both using the facts outlined in the story.
Please tell me how this is "obviously unconstitutional" and cite US supreme court cases to back it up. Dont try to use the 8th amendment cruel and unusual punishment clause because there is no basis there. The 8th has only been applied in very, very, extreme cases like getting life for shoplifting. This wouldnt even come close to applying.
joab
Member
No wiggle here. His actions put him in a position to be in this position. If he had not acted inappropriately nobody would have been able to sentence him inappropriately.
Actions have consequences sometimes unforeseen and unjust consequences
If I was an adult that just realized that I had just stepped in it I would try to justify my actions as some type of good Samaritan deed. But nobody seems to want to read further into that.
Why do his words carry more weight than her's
I grew up in America where we are not allowed to accost minors for the hell of it.
And yes physically restraining someone without right or authority is a violation
Actually yes it does, especially if she had to break free instead of just pulling away
Another difference of opinion. I picture it as him unlawfully without right or reason grabbing her by the arm which amounts to unlawful restraint.
So what does it take, anything short of a complete beat down?
So now protecting your children against violent assault is abuse. I guess some people don't hold their children in as high a regard as others do
peacefuljeffrey
member
Dude, what is wrong with you? You make the most ridiculous, oddball comparisons!
What the hell does punishing one's children have to do with criminal punishment?
Even if I do not punish my [hypothetical] children to exact revenge on them, that has nothing to do with, and does not prejudice, policies I might hold regarding punishment of criminals. You're bringing up non-sequiturs as though they prove your point. They don't.
That's crap. If punishment is worth anything as crime prevention, explain recidivism, please.
What do you mean by "removing them from temptation"? Did you mean "removing them from the population?" That would certainly make more sense.
So, because spending 21 days in jail scared you straight, you think that hard-core criminals experience the same results?
Your theory is full of huge holes.
-Jeffrey
peacefuljeffrey
member
What if a guy caught some kid breaking his car window, and he grabbed the kid with the intent of dragging him off to his parents for them to punish him/make restitution?
If he got convicted for "unlawful restraint of a minor" for that offense, he should be considered a sex offender?
And the court (and you, apparently) would say, "Yeah, he is a potential sex offender, because he grabbed a kid (albeit for the reason of the broken window, not to rape the kid) and, well, sex offenders also often start their assaults by grabbing a kid"?
Is that really how undeveloped your sense of logic is?
-Jeffrey
joab
Member
I'm trying my best to keep things on as simplistic a level as I can for you. I guess it's not working
The concept of punishment is the same regardless of who the punishers are or what the offense is
I already did
There's that whole reading comprehension thing again
That was one of my more simplistic statements I see you got it
Uh no, and I addressed that issue at the same time as the recidivism issue in case you missed it
.
So here it is as simple as I can make it.
Daddy doesn't punish you because he doesn't like you he does it so that when you get out in the world you will understand that you have to know right from wrong
There are consequences to your actions and when you're out in the real world they punish you worse than taking away your X-Box or making you stay in your room all day.
Well actually they do pretty much the same thing, but it seems to suck more when you're older.
peacefuljeffrey
member
Joab said:
Strangely, this is the type of argument used (unsuccessfully) by people who put a shotgun by the door with a string tied to the knob, to boobytrap and kill trespassering burglars.
"If the guy hadn't been breaking the law to burglarize my house, he wouldn't have gotten the way-out-of-whack consequences of his actions."
Yes, and what's freakish is the way you seem to be okay with WHATEVER the consequences are, just as long as those are the legally proscribed consequences.
It's scary to think for one's self, but... try it. You might not find it that distasteful after all.
Odd how you ask why his words should carry more weight than hers, but you have no problem with the converse, giving HER words more weight than HIS.
Neither one has physical evidence of what happened. Usually, in American jurisprudence, when no evidence exists that a crime has been committed, and no evidence exists that proves a crime was has not been committed, the defendant gets the benefit of the doubt.
You seem eager to have that turned on its ear. I refer back to my original statement that our society does better without people who think like you.
-Jeffrey
Strangely, this is the type of argument used (unsuccessfully) by people who put a shotgun by the door with a string tied to the knob, to boobytrap and kill trespassering burglars.
"If the guy hadn't been breaking the law to burglarize my house, he wouldn't have gotten the way-out-of-whack consequences of his actions."
Yes, and what's freakish is the way you seem to be okay with WHATEVER the consequences are, just as long as those are the legally proscribed consequences.
It's scary to think for one's self, but... try it. You might not find it that distasteful after all.
Odd how you ask why his words should carry more weight than hers, but you have no problem with the converse, giving HER words more weight than HIS.
Neither one has physical evidence of what happened. Usually, in American jurisprudence, when no evidence exists that a crime has been committed, and no evidence exists that proves a crime was has not been committed, the defendant gets the benefit of the doubt.
You seem eager to have that turned on its ear. I refer back to my original statement that our society does better without people who think like you.
-Jeffrey
It certainly is an extreme case.
This law states that physical restraint of a child-- in this case grabbing an arm-- is equal to a sex offense.
Again, how can he be a sex offender if he did NOT COMMIT A SEX OFFENSE?
The law demands a high degree of presumption in order to base a serious conviction that is certainly cruel and unusual.
I'm sorry Madison didn't include "The State shall make no law convicting an adult of sexual offense for merely grabbing the subject to scold."
I would say I have an unalienable right to not be convicted of a sexual offense when I did not commit such offense, but the law says I did because I was convicted of something else entirely.
It is certainly unconstitutional.
Yup, I will grant you that, technically, this case could be considered battery. I'm just amazed at what is being enforced as battery these days and what NEVER was enforced as battery only 20 yrs ago. I guess it is like enforcing that Illinois state law that says, It is illegal to mispronounce the name Joliet.
I think you are forgeting who has the authority to classify crimes. The class of laws that this would fall under are defined by the state. States are given very large discretion in determining what is and what isnt a crime, and what to call it, and what the punishment is. For a law to be overturned as cruel it has to meet a ridiculously high standard. The punishment must be extremely grossly disproportionate to the crime. This doesnt even come close. The state easily has the power to regulate conduct like this and classify it however it wants. This case would not even make it past a first round of appeals on whether the punishment violated the 8th. Any constitutional law scholar would tell you that this would not come close to being a violation.
joab
Member
Doesn't apply deadly booby traps are illegal
right back at ya
I posted 4 simple questions, with the answers, on my position on the sentencing and yet you still refuse to get it
He was convicted of the crime. The title of the Fitzroy sympathetic article was "He grabbed a girl now he's a sex offender "
There is no dispute that he grabbed her but there is nothing but his allegations that she walked in front of his car, since she was not charged or convicted of jay walking we have only his allegations to go on.
The reason I put so much credence in her assertion that she had to break free is in direct and orchestrated opposition to every body else taking only his words at face value.
I also have said that we don't know the whole story but some refuse to read comment that they post against so to hell with it
I think in your little world, you do better without people who think.
And by the way RIF
joab
Member
I think that that's a given since it didn't make it past the appellate court
And I'm agreeing with you, if you care
Who cares
JK!I dont believe that the article stated whether the 8th was brought up. I doubt it would be because every attorney knows that it has zero chance of winning. Most wouldnt even bring it up because it would make the rest of their appeal sound less credible. Winning on the 8th is almost impossible.
joab
Member
That article left many, many details, but yet has generated a 100+ post debate, that have bordered on incivility, and a call for my castration and removal from society.
Don't let a little detail like lack of details stop the flow
KriegHund
Member
This guy got over-charged, but he shoudnt have ogtten away scott free either.
He had no right to touch that girl. Minor or not, female or male.
Just the same as no one has a right to grab YOUR arm. Wether or not you did something stupid. Unless i did something legal and you are detaining/arresting me.
If i am not paying attention and accidentaly bump into you, you still have no right to grab my arm.
Personal property. I belong to ME, not you. I can choose wether oe not i want you to touch me.
If you do go and touch me, you better expect some sort of retaliation.
I love how everyone (most) here is adamant about constitutional rights- but when it comes to old fashioned 1950's style lecturing, you jump on the bandwagon saying this guy did the right thing- completely ignoring the rights of the assualted. And yes, assualted, for grabbing your arm isa precursor to many things.
Let me put it this way- An angry stranger gets out of his car and approaches you. Do you sit there and LET HIM gRAB YOU? so he can break your arm? So he can beat you to death?
Or do you DO something about it?
:banghead: :banghead:
He had no right to touch that girl. Minor or not, female or male.
Just the same as no one has a right to grab YOUR arm. Wether or not you did something stupid. Unless i did something legal and you are detaining/arresting me.
If i am not paying attention and accidentaly bump into you, you still have no right to grab my arm.
Personal property. I belong to ME, not you. I can choose wether oe not i want you to touch me.
If you do go and touch me, you better expect some sort of retaliation.
I love how everyone (most) here is adamant about constitutional rights- but when it comes to old fashioned 1950's style lecturing, you jump on the bandwagon saying this guy did the right thing- completely ignoring the rights of the assualted. And yes, assualted, for grabbing your arm isa precursor to many things.
Let me put it this way- An angry stranger gets out of his car and approaches you. Do you sit there and LET HIM gRAB YOU? so he can break your arm? So he can beat you to death?
Or do you DO something about it?
:banghead: :banghead:
Uhhh, Krieghund, I think most here would accept the charge of assault. What they are questioning, with good reason, is his conviction as a sexual offender.
That is the major problem. And too many here (one is too many) are quite willing to have him be listed as a SO.
sadness & despair
That is the major problem. And too many here (one is too many) are quite willing to have him be listed as a SO.
sadness & despair
joab
Member
As usual flawed information
She was a reformed addict out doing community service work for her church when she saw a puppy in distress. As she crossed the street to help the puppy and remove the duct tape from it's muzzle,
The crazed Barnaby who had just moments earlier thrown the puppy from his moving vehicle circled back around after recognizing her as one of his former customers who owed him money from the last fix he supplied her prior to her going into rehab, at the request of her dying aunt, Mother Theresa.
Her pleas of "No No I am pure and chaste now" were met with his vile sneers as he demanded certain services in lieu of cash.
You're right this is much more fun and probably more productive
Last edited:
thorn726
Member
exactly.
how unconstitutional?
defining something clearly NOT sexual AS sexual in nature.
the judge should have overturned this.
or GEE- WHY DO WE HAVE SCOTUS?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!!?
to keep an eye on the IDIOTS writing the laws..
man the mentality of some fo you, boy , depressing how small your world must be
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked