FBI violated my son's ADA rights

Steinhauer said:
No, I do not think it should be thrown out - because that would not allow an LEO to use discretion as to the individual's "intent".

Any LEO, who knew the individual's "intent" was to turn it over to the police and report it, would be a loser, IMHO, if they turned that individual into a felon.

If they knew the intent was to sell or distribute, then again, they can use discretion as to arrest the person or not.
Click to expand...
It's limited discretion. If the drug is above a certain amount, then they must arrest for intent to distribute.
 
Jiro said:
sadly enough - many pedophiles are actually people who look like healthy, law-abiding honest citizens with great backgrounds. They can be high school teacher who was voted as teacher of the year.... Congressman... well-known local police officer... successful entrepreneur who have donated millions to charity programs...
Click to expand...

There are also people who have been accused of pedophilia - because another individual, or group of persons, did not like the individual.

We had a local weatherman, years ago, who had charges pressed against him from two neighborhood boys. They eventually admitted they lied and that they did not like him because he was "mean" about not letting them walk on his grass.

He lost his job, his wife and his house over it.

Moral of the story? He shoulda let them walk on his grass?
 
Steinhauer said:
No, I do not think it should be thrown out - because that would not allow an LEO to use discretion as to the individual's "intent".

Any LEO, who knew the individual's "intent" was to turn it over to the police and report it, would be a loser, IMHO, if they turned that individual into a felon.

If they knew the intent was to sell or distribute, then again, they can use discretion as to arrest the person or not.
Click to expand...

FYI - LEO's job is to arrest one and charge him with whatever and then it's up to prosecutor's job (along with his discretion) to forgo it or not depending on circumstance and evidence.

Only jury can decide on individual's fate (assuming that the individual wants his/her day in court).
 
Steinhauer said:
There are also people who have been accused of pedophilia - because another individual, or group of persons, did not like the individual.

We had a local weatherman, years ago, who had charges pressed against him from two neighborhood boys. They eventually admitted they lied that they did not like him because he was "mean" about not letting them walk on his grass.

He lost his job, his wife and his house over it.
Click to expand...

never heard of criminal charge called "pedophilia". care to link me a source?
 
Jiro,

you know I enjoy "picking your brain" and hope you don't think I am "picking on you". I have a question for you now. It is a hypothetical question. Suppose your next door neighbor is trying to rent out a house. Suppose someone decided to move in. Would you be more comfortable with your new neighbors being:

a) Charles Manson out on parole - you see him sharpening machetes daily
b) A married couple having to legally register as sex offenders because they had mutual consenting sex when they were 17
 
Jiro said:
never heard of criminal charge called "pedophilia". care to link me a source?
Click to expand...

this is the only thing I could find.

john pruitt - Topix


I think he eventually got his job back, not sure. His name is John Pruitt - i don't pay attention to local news but I remember him going to trial years ago over it.
 
Steinhauer said:
Jiro,

you know I enjoy "picking your brain" and hope you don't think I am "picking on you". I have a question for you now. It is a hypothetical question. Suppose your next door neighbor is trying to rent out a house. Suppose someone decided to move in. Would you be more comfortable with your new neighbors being:

a) Charles Manson out on parole - you see him sharpening machetes daily
b) A married couple having to legally register as sex offenders because they had mutual consenting sex when they were 17
Click to expand...
Excuse me for butting in but I believe that the statutory rape charge doesn't apply when both parties are under age and are the same age. Therefor, they wouldn't be required to register as sex offenders.

Secondly, Charles Manson will never be released on parole.

In order to be a hypothetical question it has to be based on some sort of realistic circumstances.
 
Reba said:
Excuse me for butting in but I believe that the statutory rape charge doesn't apply when both parties are under age and are the same age. Therefor, they wouldn't be required to register as sex offenders.

Secondly, Charles Manson will never be released on parole.

In order to be a hypothetical question it has to be based on some sort of realistic circumstances.
Click to expand...

it is hypothetical and realistic

Statutory Rape Law in Georgia

Wendy Whitaker: Another Outrage Emerges From Georgia’s Statutory Rape Law « JONATHAN TURLEY


Jen's Horde: Charles Manson is up for parole, again


In my state, there is absolutely no violent offenders registry.
 
Steinhauer said:
Jiro,

you know I enjoy "picking your brain" and hope you don't think I am "picking on you". I have a question for you now. It is a hypothetical question. Suppose your next door neighbor is trying to rent out a house. Suppose someone decided to move in. Would you be more comfortable with your new neighbors being:

a) Charles Manson out on parole - you see him sharpening machetes daily
b) A married couple having to legally register as sex offenders because they had mutual consenting sex when they were 17
Click to expand...

a) I'm not nervous at all because Charles Manson would be back to jail again for violating his probation... I guess for a possession of machetes :)

b) such a tragic story but they most likely will not be required to be registered as sex offender. In case you didn't know, the Megan's Law varies among states and it's a case-by-case at judge's discretion.

BTW - a flaw in your B. Only one of them has to be a "minor" in order for other person to be charged as sex offender. It is legal for 2 minors to have sex with each other but it is illegal for an adult having sex with a minor.
 
Reba said:
Excuse me for butting in but I believe that the statutory rape charge doesn't apply when both parties are under age and are the same age. Therefor, they wouldn't be required to register as sex offenders.

Secondly, Charles Manson will never be released on parole.

In order to be a hypothetical question it has to be based on some sort of realistic circumstances.
Click to expand...

exactly my thought.

which is why I said what I said in my post #52


Jiro said:
....I don't trust your definition. I know for sure that your definition of such thing is way off from already established legal definitions with specific parameters.
Click to expand...
 
Jiro said:
a) I'm not nervous at all because Charles Manson would be back to jail again for violating his probation... I guess for a possession of machetes :)

b) such a tragic story but they most likely will not be required to be registered as sex offender. In case you didn't know, the Megan's Law varies among states and it's a case-by-case at judge's discretion.

BTW - a flaw in your B. Only one of them has to be a "minor" in order for other person to be charged as sex offender. It is legal for 2 minors to have sex with each other but it is illegal for an adult having sex with a minor.
Click to expand...

You need to read up on Georgia's sex offenders law then. There was a story about a currently married couple who were both charged with child molestation when they were both 17 and having consensual sex with each other.

I will see if I can find it. But ... I really do need to get some zzzzz's. (here is a story about another situation ... http://www.economist.com/node/14164614 )


Those whome were on the registry before the law changed have been grandfathered)
Have a good night everybody.
 
Steinhauer said:
this is the only thing I could find.

john pruitt - Topix


I think he eventually got his job back, not sure. His name is John Pruitt - i don't pay attention to local news but I remember him going to trial years ago over it.
Click to expand...

so..... where's a criminal charge called "pedophilia"???

All I see is child molestation.
 
Steinhauer said:
You need to read up on Georgia's sex offenders law then. There was a story about a currently married couple who were both charged with child molestation when they were both 17 and having consensual sex with each other.

I will see if I can find it. But ... I really do need to get some zzzzz's.

Have a good night everybody.
Click to expand...

yep. you definitely need a sleep. when you wake up with a fresh clear mind, look back at your posts and correct them :)

many of them do not make any sense.
 
Steinhauer said:
it is hypothetical and realistic

Statutory Rape Law in Georgia
Click to expand...
One party was 19, and the other was underage. That's not the same as your scenario.

Wendy Whitaker: Another Outrage Emerges From Georgia’s Statutory Rape Law « JONATHAN TURLEY
Click to expand...
They were not the same age as each other. Not the same scenario.

Jen's Horde: Charles Manson is up for parole, again
Click to expand...
Going up for parole and actually getting parole are not the same thing.
 
I can see you are deeply confused. oh boy.... here we go... clarifying everything for you....

Steinhauer said:
There has to be an act on an impulse. Intent has to be proven.

I am trying to think of a specific example so my meaning doesn't get lost or "twisted around".

Suppose a person makes a pipe bomb and is planning on a murder. They engaged in an activity, made a weapon, with specific plans to harm or kill another individual. The intent can be proven by the actions taken by the individual coupled with the fact that making a pipe bomb is illegal.
Click to expand...
1. I can see 3-4 criminal charges there
2. you definitely need to take a course in law. the criminal intent to commit murder cannot be proved based on one's action such as making a pipe bomb because his defense lawyer can say that he was just making bomb for his odd scientific curiosity unless the prosecutor has a strong evidence that he intended to use it to kill a person such as... a photo of his victim... a map layout of victim's neighborhood/house... etc.

Steinhauer said:
Can you charge a person who buys a gun with pre-meditated murder? After all, a gun's only purpose is to kill. There has to be a specific action involved.
Click to expand...
Any lawyer, police, prosecutor, judge, and jury know that the act of purchasing gun alone is not enough to press charge against him (assuming that he bought a gun legally). If he bought the gun illegally... he will get charged with illegal possession of firearm. But one can be charged with conspiracy to commit murder if there is evidence of his plot to commit murder.

If there is a "specific action" involved which I'm assuming that it's a criminal action in process such as walking to victim's house with a gun hidden in his pants, then one would be charged with attempted murder..... not conspiracy to commit murder. That is the prime difference.

Steinhauer said:
Watching child pornography does not prove intent to take actions on an impulse (in my opinion - I know your opinion is different).
Click to expand...
I do not need to use my opinion for this. I will simply refer to a criminal law. Watching child pornography is ILLEGAL. period.

Steinhauer said:
Just as watching porn is not proof of an individual's intent to rape. There has to be a physical act.
Click to expand...
Watching porn is NOT illegal.
Watching child porn is illegal.

what part of it do you not understand?
 
Reba said:
One party was 19, and the other was underage. That's not the same as your scenario.


They were not the same age as each other. Not the same scenario.


Going up for parole and actually getting parole are not the same thing.
Click to expand...

I said the article was about a different situation. I have not found the one concerning the married couple.
 
Jiro said:
because it doesn't exist :lol:
Click to expand...

from the article I posted:

Terry Norris of the Georgia Sheriffs’ Association cites a man who was convicted of statutory rape two decades ago for having consensual sex with his high-school sweetheart, to whom he is now married. “It doesn’t make it right, but it doesn’t make him a threat to anybody,” says Mr Norris. “We spend the same amount of time on that guy as on someone who’s done something heinous.”
Click to expand...


It is not THE couple I am referring to, but I will eventually find that information. However, it is THE point I am trying to make.
 
Back
Top