Originally Posted by Jack Manfred (Post 402169)

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

I submit the following rebuttal evidence.

http://imgsrv.qcountry1037.com/image...high_boots.jpg

Originally Posted by leagleaze (Post 402160)

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?

Originally Posted by Jack Manfred (Post 402166)

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

Originally Posted by dtb (Post 402095)

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.

Originally Posted by Jack Manfred (Post 402166)

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

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane? (Post 402132)

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

Originally Posted by Fugee (Post 402178)

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.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 402180)

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.

Originally Posted by Jack Manfred (Post 402169)

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

I submit the following rebuttal evidence.

Originally Posted by 1436 (Post 402182)

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

Originally Posted by 1436 (Post 402182)

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

Originally Posted by Jack Manfred (Post 402166)

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.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 402180)

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.

Originally Posted by evenodds (Post 402186)

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.

Originally Posted by Fugee (Post 402187)

That was definitely the creepiest moment. I didn't understand the applause for that.

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 402189)

I think it's pretty easy to understand. You get tickets for Letterman, and all of a sudden, this? They were laughing because if you're such a fan that you stand in line for tickets, you think everything he does is funny, and then the nervousness by his disclosure gets translated into laughter. I bet they even has someone warm up the audience beforehand. I think there have been studies that say laughter is not necessarily even a response to humor per se, but is just a symptom of arousal (in the psych, not sex, sense). Publicly announce you had multiple affairs with subordinates, and you wind up with an audience of Dr. Hibberts.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 402183)

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.

Originally Posted by Jack Manfred (Post 402166)

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.

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane? (Post 402185)

I can't figure out where your rant begins.

Originally Posted by evenodds (Post 402186)

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.

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane? (Post 402197)

I thought Chicago would at least get out of the first round...

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 402198)

"Her name is Rio and she dances in the sand..."

My boyfriend was rooting for Chicago because he figured that every production guy in the country would be fully employed for a good three years prior.

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane? (Post 402197)

I thought Chicago would at least get out of the first round...

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane? (Post 402197)

I thought Chicago would at least get out of the first round...

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 402193)

I filled in the missing HTML tag for you below:

Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick (Post 402130)

Mawwage.
Mawwage is what bwings us togedder today.
Mawwage, that bwessed awangment, that dweam wifin a dweam
And wuv,
twue wuv,
will fowow you foweva
So tweasure your wuv.

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane? (Post 402199)

If it's Rio (and it will be), I think I'd rather go the World Cup in 2014.

Originally Posted by evenodds (Post 402201)

Copenhagen

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 402204)

We're thinking about heading to Vancouver in February.

Originally Posted by evenodds (Post 402201)

My aunt flew to Copenhagen for the pitch this week. Though they knew it was a long shot overall, hope had grown.

Apparently the Mayor and Ryan (?) were really not good. I heard the President and the First Lady's speeches live and they were good, but the questions about logistics did not sound promising.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 402206)

Got a place to stay? I understand it's pretty hard to find anything.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 402194)

I do not think the place you call home is on this planet.

Follow up: Did he stop handing you stirrers at Starbucks or something?

Originally Posted by Jack Manfred (Post 402166)

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.

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane? (Post 402207)

It would have been a disaster. The EL is a disaster before Cubs games (40,000 people). How were they going to accommodate millions?

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 402211)

We were recently in Athens, and let me tell you, it's amazing what spending $15 or $20 billion on infrastructure can do for a city.

I hope they at least proposed some new lines and special trains.

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane? (Post 402199)

If it's Rio (and it will be), I think I'd rather go the World Cup in 2014.