Touch a minor while lecturing them, become a sex offender?

[2nd Amendment]

Nice video still from a case where the child was murdered and the victim confessed, within hours if I remember correctly.

So why the strawman? it has nothing to do with your hopeless defense of an utterly irresponsible decision.

 

[joab]

Pop quiz

Exactly what irresponsible decision am I defending?

Odd that about the only place online where anyone shows up to defend, justify, rationalize or explain this utterly wrong, irresponsible, stupid and totally unjustifiable decision is here.

OK so where else is this case being discussed?

 

[2nd Amendment]

Let me see, you have defended the conviction, if not the sentence. Others have defended the sentence itself. Even the initial prosecution was indefensible and any support from there on is inexcusable. Your entire position is sickening. He should have been given a pat on the back and nothing more. One can only hope that the next moronic and uncontrolled brat that runs across the road he simply mows down.

That is obviously the preferred outcome of some here.

Now about your picture, again, why? Exactly how does photographic evidence in a murder case link to a trumped up assault case where the court couldn't even get convictions on their primary charges?

 

[joab]

Let me see, you have defended the conviction, if not the sentence. Others have defended the sentence itself. Even the initial prosecution was indefensible and any support from there on is inexcusable. Your entire position is sickening. He should have been given a pat on the back and nothing more. One can only hope that the next moronic and uncontrolled brat that runs across the road he simply mows down.

So then it is your position that no crime is committed if someone grabs another to satiate their road rage over a trivial incident.

Or is it that since she is a child her rights are somehow less valid than his.

Or do you believe that freedom and liberty are only for those strong enough to exert their powers over other and the weak deserve what they get..

Your habit of trying to start wars with your smart alec responses and then running for the mods when anybody responds in kind prevents me from responding in kind as to actually what it is about you that sickens me.

Now about your picture, again, why? Exactly how does photographic evidence in a murder case link to a trumped up assault case where the court couldn't even get convictions on their primary charges?

You post this little piece of crap

Odd that about the only place on line where anyone shows up to defend, justify, rationalize or explain this utterly wrong, irresponsible, stupid and totally unjustifiable decision is here.

And then accuse me of srtawmanning. Read the title of the post.
And the point is at first glance it appears to be merely a man possibly chastising a young girl. Do you see the connection now?
And I did notice that your fear of someone on your side responding that it did not look like an assault led you to make sure that everybody knew that it was in fact an assault in progress. Your kind is so predictable

I think Centec may be posting somewhere why don't you go bother him with your ridiculous juvenile antics.

Or I'm sure you can find another simplistic statehater thread to join in

 

[gc70]

After 177 posts, it seems that we are just getting dumber (based on some people's characterizations of other posters) discussing this topic.

Rember that the article about this case presents few facts and is clearly sympathetic to the defendant.

IF you believe every single word of the article, at best the guy was not very smart to get out of his car and confront the girl and he had a major brain fart when he grabbed her.

We don't know all of the facts in the case, but for whatever the reason (maybe just having a bad day), the DA charged the guy with a variety of kidnaping-related offenses rather than bodily harm offenses.

Regardless of whether we think it makes sense, if the guy held the girl's arm for more than a few seconds, his actions probably fell within the technical definition of the Illinois law on unlawful restraint of a child - or at least a jury thought so.

The judges in the case apparently thought the thing was out of hand, but sentenced the guy based on the jury's verdict and the law's sentencing requirement. Most legal discussions on THR are heavily in favor of judges doing just this - applying the law as it is written rather than interjecting their own personal feelings.

My $0.02: If everything was exactly as stated in the article, the guy got a raw deal when he was charged and was trapped by a poorly-written law. If this is actually true, citizens of Illinios need to contact their legislators to get the law clarified and citizens of Cook County need to vote for a different DA.

I have no opinion (really) on whether the guy in the case should be crucified or nominated for sainthood, but reality is probably somewhere between those extremes.

 

[joab]

I have no opinion (really) on whether the guy in the case should be crucified or nominated for sainthood, but reality is probably somewhere between those extremes.

And once again gc70 muddies the water with relevancy

 

[2nd Amendment]

So then it is your position that no crime is committed if someone grabs another to satiate their road rage over a trivial incident.

Let me see, that is operating on your view of the situation. mine and others is that a guy tried to do the right thing and enlighten to some small degree an apparently foolish teen. Your assumption is not the default position.

Or is it that since she is a child her rights are somehow less valid than his.

I believe this is actually legal fact, to some degree. Regardless, it's irrelevent here.

Or do you believe that freedom and liberty are only for those strong enough to exert their powers over other and the weak deserve what they get..

Once again this question is based on an acceptance of your view of the event. Seems not many people share it.

Your habit of trying to start wars with your smart alec responses and then running for the mods when anybody responds in kind prevents me from responding in kind as to actually what it is about you that sickens me.

I respond. if you or someone else wishes to portray that response/debate as war that's your business. "Smart aleck" would again depend on ones perceptions, wouldn't it? Yours, I would suggest, is that you don't like any disagreement. The rest is an outright lie which I publicly call you on and expect you to prove or withdraw, with apology. The idea of me "running to the authorities" is laughable on its face to anyone who knows me even vaguely, and your claim is destrcutive only to you. I have never gone to a mod over another member(on this or any other board), even the two times(here) that another member has gone after me via the Mods. The only time I have ever initiated contact with them was in a complaint about a specific Admin's behavior and that was a complaint directly to Oleg.

So, you're now making stuff up? Or listening to someone's gossip? Either way, prove your (unfounded and malicious)claim or I think it safe to say you just shot any credibility you had all to hell.

As for what it is that sickens you, after our discussion in PM then this comment would you really think I'd care? Considering the tone there vs here I've come to the conclusion you're none too tightly wound. But, hey, you have a nice day...

 

[joab]

No apology necessary or given ( think back to the dogs)and I will no longer engage your ridiculously inane theory on what constitutes physical force or assault.

Go back to your state hater wonderland with the other fools and malcontents.

While I welcome disagreement I expect that disagreement to be on something I have actually stated. You have a habit (think back to the Indians) of making stuff up and claiming that I or others have made the statements.

In short you have thoroughly bored me with your idiocy and I no longer care to correspond with you.

Find someone else to irritate I am done with it.

 

[Jeeper]

Let me see, that is operating on your view of the situation. mine and others is that a guy tried to do the right thing and enlighten to some small degree an apparently foolish teen. Your assumption is not the default position.

He commited both an assault and a battery as defined in law since the founding of our country. If that is the "right thing" then all criminals are saints. He is not her parent or anyone who has any right to lecture her much less touch her. The "right thing" would have been to call the police and have them tell her parents. He is not her parent.

All any of us have is the story in the paper. The way I read it is that some stupid kid walks out into traffic because her head is in her ass. Some guy almost hits her and get pissed and jumps out of his car, grabs her and tells her she is an idiot. I seriously doubt that he was calm and cool under the situation. I doubt it was a well reasoned "lecture". No one and I mean no one is calm after somehting like that. You basically have 2 wrongs commited here. Her stupidity and his battery.


gc70's last post is dead ass right! IMHO

 

[2nd Amendment]

And once again gc70 muddies the water with relevancy

That's odd. I don't see anyone here claiming sainthood for the guy. Only that he should have been left alone. So since the relevency you cite uses an extreme not presented here it would be relevant how?

I was thinking of the dogs. So again, you lied and made up your claim or you're going on gossip? Either way, your willingness to stick with the untruth, as I said, only damages you.

Since you and a couple others appear to be almost the only people out there supporting your position I'M spouting an inane theory?

Whatever. Regardless, you don't have to worry about future discourse. You've proven yourself, with your willingness to publicly lie far more than anything else, to be beneath note and thus merely another candidate for the Ignore List. Like I said, have a nice day...

 

[2nd Amendment]

He commited both an assault and a battery as defined in law since the founding of our country.

Yep. And you'd have gotten this to trial at any other point in our history, let alone gotten a conviction, when?

The justifications are repetitive at this point. The fact is the entire event, from prosecution to conviction to absurd sentencing AND the defenses here (including "sainthood", though I am sure that was nothing but a deliberate overstatement for effect) was pointless and silly and accomplished nothing but needlessly wrecking a human life and giving a small number of people something to cluck about. THAT is why it raises the hackles on so many.

 

[peacefuljeffrey]

I don't know FL's busing laws, but in IL, buses are supposed to stop AT the child's home and children are not supposed to cross two-way streets, the route must place them on the side that their house is on. In practice, I see a lot of older kids piling out and crossing streets (I'm not on the road in the mornings). Therefore, in IL, the state would be violating itself if it tried to make him move from a "school bus stop" even though he was otherwise following guidelines.

I can't tell for sure if you are in favor of the way it is in IL there, or not, and I hope to god you are not. The idea that policy treats the children of IL as though they are retarded morons who cannot and should not be crossing streets to get their school buses... This is mollycoddling in the extreme, and the major problem with it is it breeds incapable, mentally crippled adults!

I bet those same kids who are "protected" from the "danger" of having to cross a residential street to catch the school bus come home from school and play IN the very streets they are not allowed to cross. You know, roller hockey in the street and when a car comes they yell, "CAR!" and move the goals out of the way for the car to pass...

People who defend this kind of policy are creating a country in which the citizens are not prepared to do ANYTHING on their own, and need help tying their own freakin' shoes!

-Jeffrey

 

[Jeff]

He is not her parent or anyone who has any right to lecture her...

He didn't have the right to lecture her? Says who, or what?

If I see someone else's kid doing something he shouldn't be doing, especially if he's engaging in risky behavior, I will definitely lecture that child if my better judgment allows.

 

[El Rojo]

I bet those same kids who are "protected" from the "danger" of having to cross a residential street to catch the school bus come home from school and play IN the very streets they are not allowed to cross. You know, roller hockey in the street and when a car comes they yell, "CAR!" and move the goals out of the way for the car to pass...

Out here in the PRK we are an advanced society. We had this school bus rule all the way back in the late 80's early 90's where I had to ride the bus a whole block further up from my house so the bus driver could turn off the bus, get out, and walk me across the street. Nevermind the town I live in has 366 people and we don't even have sidewalks! It used to annoy me to no end.

You have to love the nanny state. :banghead:

 

[peacefuljeffrey]

Let me state again that I dont think what he did was anyway sexual(just stupid). My point is that the state of illinois has the right to define it as one. This is completely legal and Constitutional to do whether the posters here like it or not.

It is no different that making urinating in public, mooning a child, or a number of other non-sexual acts into sex crimes. The state is the one who determines the definition. You cant say they are wrong because they determine it and it is not even close to being a constitutional violation.

No, the state does NOT have the right to define something as something it is not.

Just because the state has the power to make definitions does not mean the state can make utterly false definitions apply. Urinating in public cannot be called bank robbery. Bank robbery cannot be called murder. It doesn't matter that the authority to define crimes belongs to the state.

Likewise, grabbing a girl's arm but not attempting ANYTHING of a sexual nature is NOT a sex crime EVEN IF the state of ILLinois chooses to define it as such.

-Jeffrey

 

[Jeeper]

Yep. And you'd have gotten this to trial at any other point in our history, let alone gotten a conviction, when?

I think that most places might have charged him with simple misdemeanor battery and given him a slap on the wrist if the parents of the girl wanted it and there were witnesses.

The fact is the entire event, from prosecution to conviction to absurd sentencing AND the defenses here (including "sainthood", though I am sure that was nothing but a deliberate overstatement for effect) was pointless and silly and accomplished nothing but needlessly wrecking a human life and giving a small number of people something to cluck about.

I couldnt agree more. He got totally screwed. I just am defending the constitutionality of what the state charged him with.

He didn't have the right to lecture her? Says who, or what?

If I see someone else's kid doing something he shouldn't be doing, especially if he's engaging in risky behavior, I will definitely lecture that child if my better judgment allows.

You are correct. Freedom of speech and all. I meant that he didnt have the right to restrain to give a lecture.

 

[peacefuljeffrey]

Slavery was most certainly Constitutional prior to the 13th Amendment. ... Until we do something about it, it is apparently Constitutional.

I want to be clear on this:

Is it your position that anything that is codified in law is "Constitutional" UNTIL and UNLESS the Supreme Court declares it to be Unconstitutional?

There is no objective possibility to look at a law and say, "Well, the USSC has not ruled on it, or even heard a case on it, but that runs afoul of the protections we have under the Constitution"??!

Are you mad?!

Let's make this one real easy, a real meatball:

Let's say a law was passed tomorrow that said, "The people of the United States may not petition the government in any way for redress of grievances."

Now, the 1st Amendment specifically says that we have that right.

Are you saying that the law as I quoted it is NOT unconstitutional until the USSC hears a case on it and declares it as such?!

That's madness, dude. That is the ultimate capitulation of reason and logic to the unlimited power of the State.
It's wrong.

-Jeffrey

 

[2nd Amendment]

I think that most places might have charged him with simple misdemeanor battery and given him a slap on the wrist if the parents of the girl wanted it and there were witnesses.

Probably true. And like I said before, I'd have found it difficult to get too riled up over such a thing. Not that I still wouldn't think it was silly but, hey, silly things happen. At least it wouldn't be a felony of any sort(never mind this craziness).

I couldnt agree more. He got totally screwed. I just am defending the constitutionality of what the state charged him with.

I keep looking...

Man...you have to admit it's technically a stretch, if not in the letter then the spirit. It just screams someone wanted to make some kind of example here.

.

 

[peacefuljeffrey]

Go back to your state hater wonderland with the other fools and malcontents.

Hah! It's better than your "the-State-can-do-no-wrong-because-it's-the-State-and-it-makes-the-definitions-of-right-and-wrong" idiots' paradise.

Find someone else to irritate I am done with it.

Maybe we could argue about your abysmal grammar, instead?

Did they never teach you that two separate thoughts deserve a sentence apiece?

-Jeffrey

 

[Jeff]

El Rojo:

Is that only because you didn't capitalize unConstitutional? Slavery was most certainly Constitutional prior to the 13th Amendment.

No it was not.

preamble:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

How much more clear does it need to be that slavery was unConstitutional?

also.........

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Slavery was unconstitutional before the 13th amendment, the recent Supreme Court decision on eminent domain is unconstitutional (because the ruling clearly misinterprets-- violates-- the 5th amendment, and this law is unconstitutional because it it is a violation of the 14th and 9th amendments.

The right not to be charged with a false crime and unduly penalized is indeed covered under the 9th amendment.

 

[2nd Amendment]

Amazing the directions threads go.

There is a big segment of society that defines Constitutionality by SCOTUS decisions, or the lack thereof. I suspect if you scratch hard enough you'd discover most people do. Both conservatives and leftists. It's especially glaring when conservatives defend the Patriot Act and related nanny-statism.

 

[Jeff]

There is a big segment of society that defines Constitutionality by SCOTUS decisions, or the lack thereof.

I don't understand it, myself.

Like Jeffrey said, "That is the ultimate capitulation of reason and logic to the unlimited power of the State. It's wrong."

 

[torpid]

(sigh) What a wearying thread.

Look at the situation this way- imagine that the guy was a robot and the girl was a tree. And instead of grabbing her arm, he did a surface scan of her bark for Dutch elm disease.

Now, even though many robotic sexual assaults on trees do begin with a surface scan for Dutch elm disease, in this case the presiding judge ruled that even though the droid's scan was likely just a prelude for a beneficial diagnostic data summary, his own personal judicial legal experience was limited to the binary language of moisture vaporators- therefore the robot's actual intent was beyond his ability to discern, resulting in a "community safety" decision erring on the possibility that the scan was one of salacious intent.

This outcome of this ruling would mandate that not only would the droid be reclassified as a "demonstratably malfunctioning" reserve surplus scrap unit, but it would also be permanently fitted with a 3000m perimeter range restraining bolt, with the penalty of its removal being a total memory wipe and removal of all installed propulsion/mobility systems.

Now, is that even remotely fair?


.

 

[Jeeper]

I keep looking...

Man...you have to admit it's technically a stretch, if not in the letter then the spirit. It just screams someone wanted to make some kind of example here.

With all the recent coverage of crimes against kids the DA wanted to make a statement with this. The guy got bent over. I think the law is inane as applied but still within Illinois right to create.

There is a big segment of society that defines Constitutionality by SCOTUS decisions, or the lack thereof.

To have a society governed by law there must be a final authority on what is constitutional. That is SCOTUS. A civilized society couldnt be had without a final say. There was a great case about Martin Luther King violating a anti-assembly law for a protest he did. The law was as flagrantly unconstitutional as it could possibly get. He violated the law and it went all the way to SCOTUS. The problem was that there was a judicial injunction upholding the law which he also violated. SCOTUS found the law unconsitutional but found him guilty of violating the injunction. THere reason was that there is an outlet to redress the constitutionality of the law. You need to follow the process.

I am not saying that you need to accept the ruling as constitutional and sit on your hands. The correct redress is through the system, whether by election or other route. Otherwise you dont really believe in the basis of our government.

 

[2nd Amendment]

Jeep, I understand what you are saying, but I think what Jefff means, and what i was refering to, are those people whose personal definition of constitutionality is decided by the SCOTUS. In other words, if the SCOTUS hasn't struck it down, it must be OK. If the SCOTUS approved it then it is OK. The idea of looking at a specific law, and then its constitutional support, and making their own decision(and possibly having to be in disagreement and take an opposing stand) just isn't something they get.

The SCOTUS is not merely the final say(until they reverse themselves, anyway, which is irrelevent to these people) but the source of some people's ... I don't want to say "moral" center... but understanding of society at any rate. These tend to be the same folks(often, from my experience) who define their politics along party lines with few if any deviations. *shrug* I may not be making myself clear...

Torpid... That was GREAT!