Home | Blog | Software | Reviews and Features | Forum | Help | Donate | About us
topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • December 06, 2016, 04:18:39 AM
  • Proudly celebrating 10 years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Last post Author Topic: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?  (Read 12960 times)

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« on: October 23, 2012, 11:04:28 AM »
Somebody, please... Shoot me... The news is the dystopian novel now...

http://news.cnet.com...ternet-surveillance/

Quote
U.N. calls for 'anti-terror' Internet surveillance

United Nations report calls for Internet surveillance, saying lack of "internationally agreed framework for retention of data" is a problem, as are open Wi-Fi networks in airports, cafes, and libraries.

The United Nations is calling for more surveillance of Internet users, saying it would help to investigate and prosecute terrorists.

A 148-page report (PDF) released today titled "The Use of the Internet for Terrorist Purposes" warns that terrorists are using social networks and other sharing sites including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Dropbox, to spread "propaganda."

"Potential terrorists use advanced communications technology often involving the Internet to reach a worldwide audience with relative anonymity and at a low cost," said Yury Fedotov, executive director of the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).

...

Quote
Open Wi-Fi networks: "Requiring registration for the use of Wi-Fi networks or cybercafes could provide an important data source for criminal investigations... There is some doubt about the utility of targeting such measures at Internet cafes only when other forms of public Internet access (e.g. airports, libraries and public Wi-Fi hotspots) offer criminals (including terrorists) the same access opportunities and are unregulated."

Cell phone tracking: "Location data is also important when used by law enforcement to exclude suspects from crime scenes and to verify alibis."

Terror video games: "Video footage of violent acts of terrorism or video games developed by terrorist organizations that simulate acts of terrorism and encourage the user to engage in role-play, by acting the part of a virtual terrorist."
Paying companies for surveillance: "It is therefore desirable that Governments provide a clear legal basis for the obligations placed on private sector parties, including... how the cost of providing such capabilities is to be met."

Today's U.N. report was produced in collaboration with the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force, which counts the World Bank, Interpol, the World Health Organization, and the International Monetary Fund as members.

WTF business is it of the UN?  :huh:
Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

TaoPhoenix

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2011
  • **
  • Posts: 4,550
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #1 on: October 23, 2012, 11:54:09 AM »
The Forces of Good need a good ace draw off the deck pretty soon now. The Powers That Be are fapping to porn - excuse me, the dystopian stories. And the Gulag Archipelago.  :(


TaoPhoenix

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2011
  • **
  • Posts: 4,550
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #2 on: October 23, 2012, 12:03:22 PM »
... As evidenced by this item:

http://news.yahoo.co...slims-134358506.html

NEW YORK (AP) — A paid informant for the New York Police Department's intelligence unit was under orders to "bait" Muslims into saying inflammatory things as he lived a double life, snapping pictures inside mosques and collecting the names of innocent people attending study groups on Islam, he told The Associated Press.

Shamiur Rahman, a 19-year-old American of Bengali descent who has now denounced his work as an informant, said police told him to embrace a strategy called "create and capture." He said it involved creating a conversation about jihad or terrorism, then capturing the response to send to the NYPD. For his work, he earned as much as $1,000 a month and goodwill from the police after a string of minor marijuana arrests.

"We need you to pretend to be one of them," Rahman recalled the police telling him. "It's street theater."

...


SeraphimLabs

  • Participant
  • Joined in 2012
  • *
  • Posts: 497
  • Be Ready
    • View Profile
    • SeraphimLabs
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #3 on: October 23, 2012, 03:46:48 PM »
Only that much more proof that the government is now aiming it's weapons the very people that it is supposed to be protecting.

Anyone who dares disagree with them is now a terrorist, and subject to interrogation/vaporization.


40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,768
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #4 on: October 23, 2012, 06:27:55 PM »
No. I don't.  8)

TaoPhoenix

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2011
  • **
  • Posts: 4,550
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #5 on: October 23, 2012, 07:22:56 PM »

It's that joke I have made a few times now - time to get the Canary Server going.
"Today I was not arrested from being labeled a Terrorist."
"Today I was not arrested from being labeled a Terrorist."
(Crickets)

Tinman57

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,702
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #6 on: October 24, 2012, 03:15:39 PM »
WTF business is it of the UN?  :huh:

  Just like it's not their business to try to get guns outlawed in the U.S., but that don't stop them from trying every year.  The U.N. is a big joke that waste our tax dollars every year for bs like this....

40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,768
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #7 on: October 24, 2012, 03:29:59 PM »
The UN is a baby's pacifier. You can suck on it all day and not get anything of substance. But that's still enough to satisfy some people who have been taught never to quit and always keep on trying.

But the simple fact it exists does provide some benefit in that it serves as a reminder for how things might be if every nation on the planet didn't so jealously guard its own national sovereignty and prerogatives.
 :-\

SeraphimLabs

  • Participant
  • Joined in 2012
  • *
  • Posts: 497
  • Be Ready
    • View Profile
    • SeraphimLabs
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #8 on: October 24, 2012, 04:00:07 PM »
Also, because the UN has effectively global authority, the same nutjobs that were trying to get laws passed in the US have begun to take their issues to the UN- likely on the reasoning of global network, global police.

If any of this actually goes through we're screwed, or going to see a global realignment.

40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,768
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #9 on: October 24, 2012, 06:07:21 PM »
Also, because the UN has effectively global authority, the same nutjobs that were trying to get laws passed in the US have begun to take their issues to the UN- likely on the reasoning of global network, global police.

If any of this actually goes through we're screwed, or going to see a global realignment.


The UN has global jurisdiction - but little actual authority. Unless you count resolutions that are routinely flouted and ignored as authority.

But that's not surprising. When it was set up, there was concern that it not become the world's new governmental body, so the permanent member veto powers were incorporated into the charter making it very easy for certain "more equal" members to block anything the UN attempts to accomplish.

Simple fact is unless you have your own nukes or standing army under your direct control, your authority is largely symbolic. Even now the UN has to petition its members for ad hoc expeditionary and "peacekeeping" forces on those extremely rare occasions it is able to get a resolution for direct action passed by the assembly.

I always thought of the UN as something much like a high school's Student Council. It has all the trappings of democratically elected representative body. But it exists only by leave of the school administration and it has no real authority. It's free to debate and petition and resolve what it will. But everybody knows that the faculty (i.e. the members of the Security Council) and the School Board (i.e. the permanent members of same) call the shots.

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #10 on: October 25, 2012, 01:42:18 AM »
...the same nutjobs that were trying to get laws passed in the US have begun to take their issues to the UN- likely on the reasoning of global network, global police.

If any of this actually goes through we're screwed, or going to see a global realignment.

Psychotics gotta be psychotics.

Increased concentration of power always results in the same thing, every time - mass graves.

Also, because the UN has effectively global authority, the same nutjobs that were trying to get laws passed in the US have begun to take their issues to the UN- likely on the reasoning of global network, global police.

If any of this actually goes through we're screwed, or going to see a global realignment.


The UN has global jurisdiction

Says the UN. :)

- but little actual authority.

Because the have no legitimate authority anywhere. They are unelected... sigh... I'll skip it.

Unless you count resolutions that are routinely flouted and ignored as authority.

Got to ask about whose best interests are served sometimes.

But that's not surprising. When it was set up,

It was financed by bankers. Who paid for the UN land where they are now? ;)

there was concern that it not become the world's new governmental body,

A very worrisome thing, even now.

so the permanent member veto powers were incorporated into the charter making it very easy for certain "more equal" members to block anything the UN attempts to accomplish.

Some animals are more equal than others. :D



Simple fact is unless you have your own nukes or standing army under your direct control, your authority is largely symbolic.


Sigh... pretty much bang on. The only other consideration is size and scope... :(

Even now the UN has to petition its members for ad hoc expeditionary and "peacekeeping" forces

Nice euphemism there~! :)

Some fun searches include things like "UN sex scandal", "UN troops rape", "UN murder", etc. etc.

on those extremely rare occasions it is able to get a resolution for direct action passed by the assembly.

Doesn't stop them from coming up with all sorts of Trojan horses though. e.g. Agenda 21 and ICLEI. 

I always thought of the UN as something much like a high school's Student Council.

You are far more positive about them than I am.


It has all the trappings of democratically elected representative body. But it exists only by leave of the school administration and it has no real authority. It's free to debate and petition and resolve what it will. But everybody knows that the faculty (i.e. the members of the Security Council) and the School Board (i.e. the permanent members of same) call the shots.


As an organization that proudly includes many others, e.g. Lucifer Publishing (renamed Lucis Trust), got to be pretty happy that they don't have any real authority.

While we might joke about things like voting for Cthulhu, these people are serious about that kind of thing. Lucifer? Really? You just can't make this stuff up.
Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

TaoPhoenix

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2011
  • **
  • Posts: 4,550
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #11 on: October 25, 2012, 10:10:36 PM »

It just gets crazier. The SOPA... thread is getting a little full, so I'll file this one under "things your govt is doing to make you feel nice and free that all is well."

First the Slashdot story link:
http://yro.slashdot....ls-for-watching-dvds
Feds Continue To Consider Linux Users Criminals For Watching DVDs

And then I'll just borrow the Slashdot summary because there are so many things wrong included in it that each of you could take  a different one.

-----

"An anonymous reader sent in a link to an article in Wired about the latest DMCA loophole hearing.

Bad news: the federal government rejected requests that would make console modding and breaking DRM on DVDs to watch them legal. So, you dirty GNU/Linux hippies using libdvdcss better watch out: "Librarian of Congress James Billington and Register of Copyrights Maria Pallante rejected the two most-sought-after items on the docket, game-console modding and DVD cracking for personal use and 'space shifting.'

*Congress plays no role in the outcome*. (Extra emphasis mine, why it's different from the other thread.)

The regulators said that the controls were necessary to prevent software piracy and differentiated gaming consoles from smart phones, which legally can be jailbroken. ... On the plus side, the regulators re-authorized jailbreaking of mobile phones. On the downside, they denied it for tablets, saying an 'ebook reading device might be considered a tablet, as might a handheld video game device.'"

So you can jailbreak a phone, but if it's 1" larger and considered a "tablet" you are breaking the law."

----------------

So I think the appropriate reaction is the set of characters at the top of the keyboard.


Tinman57

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,702
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #12 on: October 26, 2012, 08:23:50 PM »
It just gets crazier. The SOPA... thread is getting a little full, so I'll file this one under "things your govt is doing to make you feel nice and free that all is well."

First the Slashdot story link:
http://yro.slashdot....ls-for-watching-dvds
Feds Continue To Consider Linux Users Criminals For Watching DVDs

-----

"An anonymous reader sent in a link to an article in Wired about the latest DMCA loophole hearing.

Bad news: the federal government rejected requests that would make console modding and breaking DRM on DVDs to watch them legal. So, you dirty GNU/Linux hippies using libdvdcss better watch out: "Librarian of Congress James Billington and Register of Copyrights Maria Pallante rejected the two most-sought-after items on the docket, game-console modding and DVD cracking for personal use and 'space shifting.'

*Congress plays no role in the outcome*. (Extra emphasis mine, why it's different from the other thread.)

The regulators said that the controls were necessary to prevent software piracy and differentiated gaming consoles from smart phones, which legally can be jailbroken. ... On the plus side, the regulators re-authorized jailbreaking of mobile phones. On the downside, they denied it for tablets, saying an 'ebook reading device might be considered a tablet, as might a handheld video game device.'"

So you can jailbreak a phone, but if it's 1" larger and considered a "tablet" you are breaking the law."

----------------

So I think the appropriate reaction is the set of characters at the top of the keyboard.

  And every time I hear some SOB yelling "America is #1" I just want to slap them...  There used to be a time, but it's not now.....

TaoPhoenix

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2011
  • **
  • Posts: 4,550
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #13 on: October 26, 2012, 08:51:32 PM »
Then there was the woman who got arrested because she protested the TSA patting down her daughter. I won't even bother with a link because a 12 second search will pull it up if anyone wants yet more depressing news. Basically the headline speaks for itself.


Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #14 on: October 26, 2012, 09:00:02 PM »
Then there was the woman who got arrested because she protested the TSA patting down her daughter. I won't even bother with a link because a 12 second search will pull it up if anyone wants yet more depressing news. Basically the headline speaks for itself.

I saw that. Shameful. It's now criminal to protect your children from child molesters. Sick.
Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,768
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #15 on: October 26, 2012, 10:04:41 PM »
I'm not even sure what the word 'safe' means any more in the wake of the decision in the case of State of Connecticut v. Fourtin rendered by the wise and benevolent Supreme Court of the State of Connecticut.

I'll provide a link to a good article which also provides links to the actual ruling. But please be forewarned this is one of the singularly most disgusting travesties of justice ever perpetuated by a US court. It involves a rape case. And it's one of those stories about judicial interpretation so extreme and completely divorced from any shred of common decency that it boggles the imagination. If you're easily upset - or not comfortable possibly experiencing a brief episode of blind rage like I did - do yourself a big favor and skip this one.

Excerpt from article below. Link to full article here.

Reader discretion advised.
Quote
By now many of you have seen the articles on the atrocious Connecticut State Supreme Court decision to overturn the conviction of Richard Fourtin, the man accused of raping a physically disabled woman. In a 4-3 ruling, they decided that the victim, a woman with cerebral palsy who can barely move, cannot speak, and is severely mentally disabled, did not put up enough of a fight to indicate that the sex that occurred was not consensual.

This is a difficult thing to write about in a rational manner without things deteriorating into incoherent swearing and calling down the wrath of ancient, forgotten gods against the justices who voted to overturn this conviction. I am the parent of an autistic child who at the age of five, is barely verbal and incapable of communicating simple facts about what happened in kindergarten that day. This crime, and the subsequent ruling to overturn the conviction, is the stuff of my nightmares and those of anyone who has a loved one with a serious disability.

If the reason for overturning this conviction came in the form of new forensic evidence exonerating Fourtin or some other new information that cast doubt on his involvement or something along those lines, it would simply be justice served. But the reason that the justices gave for overturning the conviction was that the victim did not qualify under the law as “physically helpless.”

That’s right. I couldn’t make this up if I tried.

If you feel like reading the ruling opinion, you can. It spends several pages dissecting the legalistic definition of “physically helpless” and apparently, being completely nonverbal (relying on grunting and occasional use of a communication board), and having an extremely limited ability to move due to cerebral palsy, does not, in these judges’ minds, qualify as “physically helpless” because she could have screeched, bitten, kicked, or scratched to communicate that she did not want sex. These are the same justices, by the way, who sat through four days of the victim’s laborious testimony watching her slowly and painfully use her one working finger to respond to questions with her communication board. They watched this testimony and concluded she could have really put up more of a fight.

   ‘‘It is apparent that the physical helplessness contemplated by the statute requires more than a disease causing physical paralysis.’’


 :'(
« Last Edit: October 26, 2012, 10:10:16 PM by 40hz »

TaoPhoenix

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2011
  • **
  • Posts: 4,550
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #16 on: October 26, 2012, 11:18:07 PM »
Then there was the woman who got arrested because she protested the TSA patting down her daughter. I won't even bother with a link because a 12 second search will pull it up if anyone wants yet more depressing news. Basically the headline speaks for itself.

I saw that. Shameful. It's now criminal to protect your children from child molesters. Sick.

How dare you! They are Government Agents keeping you safe! Therefore they can never ever be abusers!


Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #17 on: October 27, 2012, 01:40:18 AM »
I'll provide a link to a good article which also provides links to the actual ruling. But please be forewarned this is one of the singularly most disgusting travesties of justice ever perpetuated by a US court. It involves a rape case. And it's one of those stories about judicial interpretation so extreme and completely divorced from any shred of common decency that it boggles the imagination. If you're easily upset - or not comfortable possibly experiencing a brief episode of blind rage like I did - do yourself a big favor and skip this one.

Seems to me like the only remaining questions for any semblance of justice would be to pick which of the 4 judges gets lynched first, and whether they get lynched before or after the "defendant".

What can one possibly say when their government and judicial branches of government so horribly betray the public trust?
How can anyone reasonably be expected to have any respect for the "law" when it has become so horribly twisted like this?
How is it that we are under any kind of moral obligation to support this "authority" (i.e. surrender our power) when they sit idly by and watch the weak get raped, literally and metaphorically?

...experiencing a brief episode of blind rage like I did...

I think I'm over rage now. I very rarely flip out anymore. Instead, I just cry.
Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

TaoPhoenix

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2011
  • **
  • Posts: 4,550
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #18 on: October 27, 2012, 03:59:17 AM »
I'm not even sure what the word 'safe' means any more in the wake of the decision in the case of State of Connecticut v. Fourtin rendered by the wise and benevolent Supreme Court of the State of Connecticut.

I'll provide a link to a good article which also provides links to the actual ruling. But please be forewarned this is one of the singularly most disgusting travesties of justice ever perpetuated by a US court. It involves a rape case. And it's one of those stories about judicial interpretation so extreme and completely divorced from any shred of common decency that it boggles the imagination. If you're easily upset - or not comfortable possibly experiencing a brief episode of blind rage like I did - do yourself a big favor and skip this one.

Excerpt from article below. Link to full article here.

 :'(

Okay, I'll cash in one of my goodwill points on this one. I first noticed the source of the article, and it sent an alarm bell in my head, so I spent some time reading the actual case ruling. At issue is what I feel is the much larger theme in all of law of whether courts should (my phrasing coming up) "issue rulings in the spirit of what social decency thinks the law should say", and the more narrow "issue rulings in the sense of what the law does say".

From a historical sense, remember the old Civil War sense called "States Rights"? In one element that's what is going on here too, the downside of States Rights. Basically no one reads actual texts of the state laws until they show up in a court case that goes *against* common decency. I'm in the awful position of saying that the Court might be "technically" correct *because the law has the horrible flaw which produced this result*. So in my view the next thing the activists should do is point at this case to fix the law with enough language that all the parties of this case agree that the outcome would have been what it "should have been". (Maybe something like "When the Recipient of advances has *difficulty communicating*, additional diligence on the part of the Offeror to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the advances were both requested and desired.")

When one of these kinds of cases goes wrong, it would be interesting if someone (some public defense foundation?) triggered a national law review of the exact same case against the laws of all the states in a charts to then see which states have a flaw that should be fixed legislatively.

Whew! No one seems to be saying these Justices are happy about their ruling! My bet is that they saw an even more disastrous loophole lurking if they ruled the other way, and you know that it only takes one bad ruling with a legal shark waiting to find something truly nasty to perpetrate.

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #19 on: October 27, 2012, 06:26:01 AM »
Okay, I'll cash in one of my goodwill points on this one.

Cashed. ;)

Okay, I'll cash in one of my goodwill points on this one. I first noticed the source of the article, and it sent an alarm bell in my head, so I spent some time reading the actual case ruling. At issue is what I feel is the much larger theme in all of law of whether courts should (my phrasing coming up) "issue rulings in the spirit of what social decency thinks the law should say", and the more narrow "issue rulings in the sense of what the law does say".

From a historical sense, remember the old Civil War sense called "States Rights"? In one element that's what is going on here too, the downside of States Rights. Basically no one reads actual texts of the state laws until they show up in a court case that goes *against* common decency. I'm in the awful position of saying that the Court might be "technically" correct *because the law has the horrible flaw which produced this result*. So in my view the next thing the activists should do is point at this case to fix the law with enough language that all the parties of this case agree that the outcome would have been what it "should have been". (Maybe something like "When the Recipient of advances has *difficulty communicating*, additional diligence on the part of the Offeror to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the advances were both requested and desired.")

When one of these kinds of cases goes wrong, it would be interesting if someone (some public defense foundation?) triggered a national law review of the exact same case against the laws of all the states in a charts to then see which states have a flaw that should be fixed legislatively.

Whew! No one seems to be saying these Justices are happy about their ruling! My bet is that they saw an even more disastrous loophole lurking if they ruled the other way, and you know that it only takes one bad ruling with a legal shark waiting to find something truly nasty to perpetrate.

I'm not so sure that the courts were technically correct. Maybe.

The fact is that she is severely mentally retarded. Sure, she can kick and scream in protest in situations that she is familiar with. Less familiar situations? Well, who knows. Nothing in the ruling there hit that point. Dunno.

Even if they were technically correct, the jury gets to interpret the law any darn way they want. They get instructions from the judge, but they are under no obligation to follow those directions exactly. The obvious case is actually the opposite, where a jury find someone innocent - it's called jury nullification.

So, what's the opposite of jury nullification? And would that even make sense?

Clips from the ruling
http://www.jud.ct.go...cr/CR307/307CR83.pdf

Quote
‘‘The [victim] is a woman with significant disabilities
that affect the manner in which she interacts with others.
She [suffered a brain hemorrhage after being born
three months premature, and her disabilities include]
cerebral palsy, mental retardation and hydrocephalus.
She cannot walk and needs assistance in performing
the activities of daily living. She is nonverbal but communicates
with others by gesturing and vocalizing and
through the use of a communication board.7 To manifest
her displeasure, she can kick, bite and scratch. The
[victim] can also vocalize her feelings by groaning or
screeching.


I would take it that those are situations that she has been exposed to and understands...


Quote
Finally, the prosecutor also presented the testimony
of two physicians, both of whom previously had examined
the victim, regarding their ability to communicate
with her. Jose Reyes, an obstetrician and gynecologist,
testified that when he treated the victim for dermatitis
in her genital area in 2005, he communicated with the
victim through S because he was unable to communicate
with the victim directly. The prosecutor also asked
James Bovienzo, an emergency department physician
who had examined the victim after the alleged sexual
assault, whether he was ‘‘able to discuss matters with
[the victim] while [he was] involved in collecting any
evidence in this case . . . .’’ Bovienzo replied that
‘‘[t]he patient was noncommunicative.’’11

Appears that some situations make her noncommunicative?

Quote
The state opposed the motion, arguing that the issue
of physical helplessness and the question of whether the
victim was unable ‘‘to communicate her wishes’’ was
a question of fact for the jury. The trial court denied
the defendant’s motion on the ground that the state had
presented sufficient evidence to allow the matter to be
decided by the jury.

I must say though, that it is better for a court to rule someone innocent after a guilty verdict than to set aside a finding of innocence and rule the defendant guilty.

Quote
The defendant appealed to the Appellate Court,
claiming that the state had failed to adduce sufficient
evidence to prove that the victim’s disabilities rendered
her physically helpless within the meaning of § 53a-65
(6). State v. Fourtin, supra, 118 Conn. App. 47. The
defendant argued that the state ‘‘[had] not alleged that,
at the time . . . [he] assaulted the [victim], she was
unconscious, intoxicated, asleep or for some other reason
unable to communicate nonverbally, such as by
kicking, scratching and screeching. The defendant
maintain[ed], therefore, that, even viewing the evidence
at trial in favor of the state, the record [did] not establish
beyond a reasonable doubt that the [victim] was physically
unable to communicate [her] unwillingness to an
act, as § 53a-65 (6) requires.’’ (Internal quotation marks
omitted.) Id., 48.

Letter of the law...

Quote
Before we can determine whether the state presented
sufficient evidence to prove that the victim was ‘‘physically
helpless,’’ however, we first must consider the
meaning of that statutory term. Because the state’s
claim raises an issue of statutory interpretation, we
exercise a plenary standard of review. E.g., State v.
Courchesne, 296 Conn. 622, 668, 998 A.2d 1 (2010).
Pursuant to General Statutes § 1-2z, we begin our analysis
with ‘‘the text of the statute itself and its relationship
to other statutes. If, after examining such text and considering
such relationship, the meaning of such text is
plain and unambiguous and does not yield absurd or
unworkable results, extratextual evidence of the meaning
of the statute shall not be considered.’’

As a preliminary matter, it bears emphasis that no
one would dispute that the victim is physically helpless
in the ordinary sense of that term. Physical helplessness
under § 53a-65 (6), however, has a highly particularized
meaning that is unrelated to whether a person is physically
able to resist unwanted sexual advances or mentally
able to understand when to resist such advances.
Rather, under § 53a-65 (6), a person is physically helpless
if they are ‘‘unconscious or for any other reason
. . . physically unable to communicate unwillingness
to an act.’’ (Emphasis added.) Our case law, and the
case law of other jurisdictions, makes clear that, under
this definition, even total physical incapacity does not,
by itself, render an individual physically helpless.14

And now brains begin falling out...


Quote
In State v. Hufford, 205 Conn. 386, 397–99, 533 A.2d
866 (1987), for example, we rejected the state’s claim
that the victim, who was totally physically restrained,
was physically helpless as that phrase is statutorily
defined. In Hufford, the victim allegedly was sexually
assaulted by the defendant, Steven H. Hufford, an emergency
medical technician, while she was being transported
to the hospital by ambulance. Id., 390. Although
the victim was unable to resist the alleged sexual assault
because she was restrained on a stretcher; id., 390,
393; this court rejected the state’s claim that she was
physically helpless because she repeatedly told Hufford
to stop touching her. Id., 398–99. We explained that,
because the victim ‘‘was not unconscious, we [were]
concerned with whether she was physically able to
communicate her unwillingness to the act.’’ Id., 398. We
concluded that the word ‘‘communicate’’ was plain and
unambiguous, and meant ‘‘to make known: inform a
person of . . . speak, gesticulate . . . to convey information.’’
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., quoting
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary.
Because the victim in Hufford was able to communicate
her lack of consent to Hufford, the state failed to satisfy
its burden of proving the essential element of physical
helplessness. State v. Hufford, supra, 398–99; see also
People v. Orda, 180 Misc. 2d 450, 454, 690 N.Y.S.2d 822
(1999) (physical helplessness requirement in New York
Penal Law ‘‘is not satisfied by an inability to move one’s
body [when] the victim is able to protest verbally’’);
People v. Morales, 139 Misc. 2d 200, 202, 528 N.Y.S.2d
286 (1988) (‘‘although [the victim, who was paralyzed
from the neck down] was indeed physically helpless in
the ordinary sense of the term, she was not physically
helpless for purposes of the [New York Penal Law]’’).

Rationalization.

Quote
The dissent also contends that the jury reasonably could have found that
the victim could not communicate unwillingness to an act on the basis of
the testimony of the physicians who stated that they could not communicate
with the victim during the course of her gynecological examinations. As we
previously explained, however; see footnote 17 of this opinion; the fact that
the physicians could not communicate with the victim does not establish
that the victim was unable to communicate with them by biting, kicking,
scratching, screeching, groaning or gesturing if she felt the need to do so.
Because the victim requires a communication board to express herself in
words, it proves nothing that, without the aid of her communication board,
the victim did not attempt to communicate with her physicians.

Anything is possible. I believe the standard though was "reasonable".



 
Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,768
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #20 on: October 27, 2012, 06:46:14 AM »
Okay, I'll cash in one of my goodwill points on this one.

Ka-ching! Your transaction has been processed. Balance in your account is now: $0.  :)


My bet is that they saw an even more disastrous loophole lurking if they ruled the other way, and you know that it only takes one bad ruling with a legal shark waiting to find something truly nasty to perpetrate.

Sure does. Now any woman in CT who is assaulted (and becomes so terrified or traumatized that she's unable to scream) can take comfort in knowing that. Same goes for the prosecutor's office.

It has taken decades of work to get rape and assault victims to the point of where they were willing to come forward and press charges. And they were doing so because they finally started to believe they would be believed - and more importantly, that something would be done.

Much of that just went out the window in the wake of this ruling.

The function of a court is to interpret the law. An interpretation so totally divorced from reality that it becomes nothing more than an schoolbook exercise in definition splitting and semantics is not an example of judicial restraint or reasonableness. It's simply an example of dereliction and ego-tripping on the part of a court.

So it goes... :-\


TaoPhoenix

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2011
  • **
  • Posts: 4,550
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #21 on: October 27, 2012, 10:01:42 AM »
Heh, knew that was gonna happen, but I'll hang on for the ride.

It's an awful, awful result, but courts don't let "rapists" off the hook for the fun of it, not in this "terrorist until proven innocent" age. (Remember those other 10 threads?) Without doing 10 hours of research, I have to go with my gut and say that there's some awful consequence of ruling the other way. We're just looking at the summary of the case, and my instincts are saying there's some tremendously complicated pitfall lurking behind here. As a 12 second guess, it might have something to do with anyone who is disabled, who deserves to flirt, so when the partner agrees, then suddenly they are an animal?! Supreme Courts only rule on the existing law, they don't get to add random new clauses to it.

So if I put my evil hat on, any pissed off disabled person could go "trolling" by flirting out of evidence range, becoming one vs the other hearsay, then claim abuse. "Oh, that would never happen" you say. I've met people like that. Then that forces the legal system to create fuzzy "standards of disability for intimate conduct" out of thin air.

That's the price of vague laws. The edge cases get really ugly.

TaoPhoenix

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2011
  • **
  • Posts: 4,550
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #22 on: October 27, 2012, 10:11:10 PM »
More traditional category here - from the "I feel safe, Canada Edition"

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...ographer-arrest.html

"B.C. teen arrested for photographing mall takedown
Lawyer says guards and police have no right to demand people's cameras"


40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,768
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #23 on: October 27, 2012, 11:57:49 PM »
Heh, knew that was gonna happen, but I'll hang on for the ride.

Quote
As a 12 second guess

Quote
So if I put my evil hat on

Here's how I see a good part of the problem. This particular case is being treated as an intellectual parlor game by some. Most times it's merely saddening when ordinary people indulge in playing devil's advocate, or argue for something in one breath only to take it back in the very next. Unfortunately, when a state supreme court approaches it the same way, and treats it as an opportunity to show how clever they can be at spinning an interpretation to its logical extreme, well...the mind boggles. And the world is left a sorrier place.

Not surprising in a way. This sort of legal nonsense, like every other form of masturbation, is far more pleasant to indulge in than it is to watch.


TaoPhoenix

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2011
  • **
  • Posts: 4,550
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
« Reply #24 on: October 28, 2012, 08:39:46 AM »
More traditional category here - from the "I feel safe, Canada Edition"

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...ographer-arrest.html

"B.C. teen arrested for photographing mall takedown
Lawyer says guards and police have no right to demand people's cameras"

More from the Canadian Edition:

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...et-surveillance.html

Police need new internet surveillance tools, say chiefs
Bill C-30 would give police access to internet communications without a warrant