Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Don't You Want to be "Safe"?

<< < (5/15) > >>

40hz:
Okay, I'll cash in one of my goodwill points on this one.
-TaoPhoenix (October 27, 2012, 03:59 AM)
--- End quote ---

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.
-TaoPhoenix (October 27, 2012, 03:59 AM)
--- End quote ---

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:
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:
More traditional category here - from the "I feel safe, Canada Edition"

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/10/25/bc-teen-photographer-arrest.html

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

40hz:
Heh, knew that was gonna happen, but I'll hang on for the ride. -TaoPhoenix (October 27, 2012, 10:01 AM)
--- End quote ---

As a 12 second guess
--- End quote ---

So if I put my evil hat on

--- End quote ---

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:
More traditional category here - from the "I feel safe, Canada Edition"

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/10/25/bc-teen-photographer-arrest.html

"B.C. teen arrested for photographing mall takedown
Lawyer says guards and police have no right to demand people's cameras"
-TaoPhoenix (October 27, 2012, 10:11 PM)
--- End quote ---

More from the Canadian Edition:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/10/26/bc-jim-chu-internet-surveillance.html

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

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page