This is the thread where the fringster comes back with teeth - Page 329

Jack Manfred · 10-02-2009, 01:27 AM

Someone on the board disapproved of women wearing short skirts and boots.

I submit the following rebuttal evidence.

ltl/fb · 10-02-2009, 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Manfred

Someone on the board disapproved of women wearing short skirts and boots.

I submit the following rebuttal evidence.

I recently advised a friend who got tall boots with heels to wear them with a relatively short skirt, and I can only dream of walking around in something similar myself.

So whoever the disapproving one is, disapprove me.

Sparklehorse · 10-02-2009, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leagleaze

i remember when peter was around and it was extremely odd. Now skimming the opinion above it looks like life is still extremely odd for him. Wasn't he the one with the wacky website?

stp, s*t*p.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 10-02-2009, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Manfred

With today's Penal Code, I'd bury Polanski.

May you get the chance.

Jack Manfred for DA!

Fugee · 10-02-2009, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dtb

How many of you wrote and read your own vows? I think I'm way too shy or private or reserved or something not to feel like a complete idiot declaring my unscripted vows in front of other people (not to my beloved, of course, just in front of others).

So... just how weird does that make me? Please compare me only to all you freaks as a group, not the general population.

I take it from the question that you are having more guests than just the kids.

It's your wedding. Do what makes you happy and/or comfortable. If you don't feel comfortable writing your own vows, just stick with the standards. If you want a little bit more, script something and give the paper to the officiant to hold until the part of the ceremony when you need it.

If it makes you feel any better about it, one of my favorite "cute" wedding moments was when a friend forgot her memorized vows part way through. She'd been going along with her prepared words and when she lost her place said "...and....and...and I just LOVE you." The cuteness doesn't really come through in written words, but the delivery made it very sweet.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 10-02-2009, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Manfred

With today's Penal Code, I'd bury Polanski.

Mr. Polanski said that he would bury you.

Fugee · 10-02-2009, 09:36 AM

Even so, I'm glad in my county they save grand jury for murder one charges. I don't know why it takes a grand jury to charge for extortion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xPre-Wwz9I

As for the video, it's a little creepy that the audience laughs at a lot of this.

greatwhitenorthchick · 10-02-2009, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Did your avatar have her hips photoshaved off? I feel like she needs more hips.

Yeah, I think so. It's not me, so I don't know for sure.

Adder · 10-02-2009, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fugee

Even so, I'm glad in my county they save grand jury for murder one charges. I don't know why it takes a grand jury to charge for extortion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xPre-Wwz9I

As for the video, it's a little creepy that the audience laughs at a lot of this.

He jokes throughout, so the laughing isn't that weird. But the long applause after he says he has had sex with women that work for him. How is that something to applaud. I'm, it's not like he is me.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 10-02-2009, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder

He jokes throughout, so the laughing isn't that weird. But the long applause after he says he has had sex with women that work for him. How is that something to applaud. I'm, it's not like he is me.

I did indeed think that was the creepiest moment, but, you are right, I would cheer if you had sex with someone you worked with.

But you are not married with kid. Go, Adder, Go!

1436 · 10-02-2009, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Manfred

Someone on the board disapproved of women wearing short skirts and boots.

I submit the following rebuttal evidence.

Time to amend the complaint. Maybe something about *short* boots and short skirts and shorts?

Adder · 10-02-2009, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1436

Time to amend the complaint. Maybe something about *short* boots and short skirts and shorts?

I thought the objections were to (1) cowboy boots and (2) Uggs.

Other kinds of boots with short skirts can be both fashionable and appealing.

Did you just call me Coltrane? · 10-02-2009, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1436

Time to amend the complaint. Maybe something about *short* boots and short skirts and shorts?

Hooker boots are always fine. I don't think anyone thought you meant hooker boots.

Did you just call me Coltrane? · 10-02-2009, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Manfred

If I'm correct, I'm the only poster on this board who has actually prosecuted both adults and juveniles for forcible and statutory rape. With that said, let me say that I might understand what Hank is getting at.

As a prosecutor in California today, I am not on board with pleading someone out to a PC 261.5 statutory rape if I believe that the defendant violated PC 261(a)(2) by forcibly raping someone. But sometimes what you thought was a statutory rape case turns out to be a forcible rape case. The victim might be so traumatized in a date-rape situation with an older man that she minimizes or doesn't explain the perpetrator's conduct during the first interview with the police. The reverse is also true: sometimes what you thought was a forcible rape is actually statutory rape. Dad assumes that the reason his precious angel is pregnant is because she was raped, and daughter is too afraid to explain the whole story until after the police have been called.

If I'm the prosecutor now on a case with Polanski's facts, I'm not going to let it settle for a PC 261.5. Not when I can get a conviction on a PC 288(a) for lewd and lascivious acts on a child under 14. That's harder for the defense to fight than either the 261(a)(2) or the 261.5. And unlike a PC 261.5, the judge can't reduce it to a misdemeanor. The middle term is six years prison. The mitigated term is three years prison.

Two more points. First, prosecutors do file charges on statutory rape cases even though there's no issue involving force or actual consent. If you're 25 and your girlfriend is 15, expect charges. Same thing if you're 17 and your girlfriend is 13. And I can file PC 288(a) on a juvenile if they're over 14 and having sex with someone under 14. Now the typical DA's office in California is going to turn down cases where the 17-year old boy sleeps with his 15-year old girlfriend, and her angry parents drop a dime on the boyfriend. But if he gets her pregnant? And she's keeping it? Maybe someone wants to make sure the boyfriend takes a parenting class or a sex ed class or is staying in school so he at least has a diploma for a slightly better-paying job over the next 18 years. Now that's where there's a lot of discretion and leeway, especially in juvenile court, and where statutory rape should be charged as or settled for a misdemeanor.

Second, it's worth noting that the main reason society needs rape shield laws is because judges consistently and appallingly lacked the fortitude to sustain objections to the victim's past sexual history and what she was wearing and other irrelevant evidence that was solicited solely to sully the victim and make her cross-examination an ordeal. Just look at the transcript from the Polanski proceedings. The lawyers make it plain what tactics they had planned for the victim. None of that should have been admissible 30 years ago under a 352 analysis (think FRE 403) or even an FRE 402 analysis. It's shameful that we need them, and it's even more shameful when judges don't use them properly today. [/RANT]

I can't speak to what the prosecutors should have done 30 years ago, as my main interests at that time were Legos, Star Wars action figures, and the Muppet Show.

With today's Penal Code, I'd bury Polanski.

I can't figure out where your rant begins.

evenodds · 10-02-2009, 10:22 AM

Last night, I bumped into a man who is a friend of my friends.

It was clear after six months of randomly bumping into him around town and no encouragement on my part and some direct rebuffs, he had placed me firmly into "friend zone."

I am not familiar with this "friend zone," and I do not like men to put me there. I am far more comfortable when they continue to ardently pursue me despite my coldness.