Home « Forum « Story Ideas

Forum: Story Ideas

Real reason for delays when police serve a search warrant

docholladay

How many know the real reason for the delay after the announcement of the serving of a search warrant or any other warrant for police forcibly entering a house or any other closed building?

There is a legal reason for the delay although its not a part of any law. Its a defense reason in court.

The same reason is also in force when ever a policeman whether in uniform or plain clothes stops a suspect on foot.

Clue its part of the reason that there is a method to waking a Recon Marine or other special forces veteran.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@docholladay

How many know the real reason for the delay after the announcement of the serving of a search warrant or any other warrant for police forcibly entering a house or any other closed building?


Because the cops are sat round their recreation centre wide screen watching the big match live?

(Not entirely a jest - you should hear the local police car sirens when they're in a hurry to get back to their station to watch an England match.)

AJ

Replies:   docholladay
docholladay
Updated:

@awnlee jawking


Because the cops are sat round their recreation centre wide screen watching the big match live?


The reason lies in the reflex actions of the individuals inside the house or the person being stopped by the police. The police serving the warrant has to alert the people inside as to who they are and the service of the warrant. Allowing time for the mind to become aware of who they are. The basic time frame in a court of law is between 30 and 60 seconds. Same time period applies to an individual stopped by a policeman out in the open with the included notification as to who and what they are. That time frame (I am not sure of the exact amount of time) can be used to avoid the person involved with physical responses up to and including killing the policeman, being charged and/or convicted of the act. In other words for that period of time they are not legally responsible for their instinctive reflex actions.

edited to add: Most often these reflex actions are observable with special forces veterans, recently returned from a combat area.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@docholladay

Thanks for the info, and apologies for cheapening your topic with a reply of humorous intent.

AJ

Replies:   docholladay
docholladay

@awnlee jawking

Not a problem. Its one of those little facts the police do not want to get out. Its why you always see them delaying the forced entry when serving a warrant as well as yelling so loud about being the police. Its to remove that defense tactic. Like I said the actual time factor is one part I am not certain of the extent.
Funny part is that little factor does not depend on a person being a veteran or whatever. Anyone can use that defense if they shoot a policeman entering their residence if they were asleep. I remember one time a pedestrian used that defense when a policeman came up behind him and placed his gun in to the middle of his back saying "Freeze". The pedestrian turned and grabbing the gun among other things shot the cop. Legal defense was he did not know it was a cop.

Replies:   Jim S  Joe Long
Jim S

@docholladay

There is an exception to this rule, i.e. no knock warrants. I'm assuming we're talking about the US here.

With a no knock warrant, the police only have to identify themselves just prior to crashing the door. Mostly done for drug busts where there is a (strong) possibility of the evidence being flushed.

Replies:   docholladay
docholladay

@Jim S

Maybe but notice I said it was something a defense lawyer can use against the cops. There is a reason its not advertised the same as certain facts about evidence at a murder scene are with held from the public. A cop who is shot when crashing in a closed door might not be able to get away with charging the shooter.
Its a combination of factors which work against the cops in this situation. One the shooter is startled and reacts automatically before becoming aware its a cop. That lack of "awareness and control" of the reaction is the key to the defense.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@docholladay

All true. You make good points here. But my comment was directed more towards the first post in this topic. It seemed to imply that the delay was the only way that police had of serving a warrant. I just attempted to clarify. Maybe I should have linked back to the post instead of yours.

Replies:   docholladay
docholladay
Updated:

@Jim S

Not a problem. I said its a defense tactic. Problem for the police is proving the shooter was Awake and Aware of what was happening. Almost an impossibility so the defense lawyers would probably win on that point.

I know from first hand experience, that even when the cop knows something is true. That does not say they can prove it in court.

edited to add: two cops knew I had set a man up to be beaten and robbed. they even knew how I did it. But could not prove it in court when all the witnesses said I was drunk and crying in my beer. No sobriety tests were done at the time so all they had was eye-witness testimony to what I said while drunk.

docholladay

I should admit I was laughing as the cops cussed me out about that guy who was beaten and robbed. I told them it was their own fault. The man had pulled a butcher knife on me as I was going to my apartment. Yet when they were called, they told him to go home and put the knife away. Then they told me if anything happened to the man, I would be arrested for it. Self defense I had to make sure the man was hurt and I had the right witnesses that I was no where near the scene. The cops were my "ALIBI" witnesses. I was in the same coffee shop they were having their lunch break in when he was robbed. I was sitting in the middle of the counter drinking coffee and reading a book.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@docholladay

I recall advice given to Western ranchers or landowners when finding an animal on the Endangered Species list (thereby depriving them of many of their rights as property owners) and running afoul of the Endangered Species Act --- shoot, shovel, shutup. As per your situation, sometimes necessary actions are illegal. But they are just. And my example is a prime example of the law of unintended consequences.

Replies:   docholladay
docholladay

@Jim S

The problem is sometimes what is known to be true by the people involved is totally different than what can be proved in court.

What always got me was the cops were using some of my past records which they should not have had access to in their statements. No release forms were signed and to my knowledge no court orders were issued for the access to those records.

In a way I got tired of trying to prove the records were not the whole story.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@docholladay

Another way of saying that justice isn't served in the legal system. Only the law supported which side has the better lawyer. Which sounds like a great premise for a story. Wonder if any authors are hanging out here monitoring my drivel.

Replies:   docholladay
docholladay

@Jim S

Who knows Jim. And its not drivel, just a different point of view which can be very interesting when taken with an open mind.

I do admit to the fact I have broken the written laws a few times in the past. (all well past the statute of limitations)

Like the first was a young 15 year old girl, who's loving parents had married her off at the age of 13 to a man in his late 40's. A year later that loving husband kicked her out for being too old. Legally the girl should have been returned to her loving parents. Instead I took her to a free clinic to check her health among other things. She never did return to those parents and to my knowledge has a new husband who will do anything to make her happy.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@docholladay

I do admit to the fact I have broken the written laws a few times in the past. (all well past the statute of limitations)

In my state of residence, anyone having sexual relations with someone under 16 years of age is a felon and, if convicted, must register as a sex offender. Luckily, my "transgression" was long before that law was passed, i.e. high school pre Reagan. I sometimes think that legislators keep on passing laws so that everyone, somewhere (unless a monk and maybe not even then) ends up liable for prosecution. Just another way to control the populace. Cynical of me (I know) but I can't help the thoughts that come to my head.

Replies:   REP  sejintenej
docholladay

Heck even knowing the cost if I was to ever do it again and got caught. I would just have to go to prison. No way in hell I could send a little girl back into that kind of home even if its what the law requires. Somethings are just worth the cost.

Replies:   Jim S
Ernest Bywater

Doc,

Sometimes the law is upheld, sometimes justice is upheld, and is extremely rare for both to happen at the same time.

Jim S
Updated:

@docholladay


No way in hell I could send a little girl back into that kind of home even if its what the law requires. Somethings are just worth the cost.


Again, one helluva theme for a story. Hope the ones really talented at turning ideas into written art are lurking....

ETA: And inspired.

Replies:   docholladay
docholladay

@Jim S

funny part is for years I took the credit for each of those I helped. Then something made me really take a close look and man was I shocked. So many things that should have been impossible, beginning with that one girl. How in the hell did those Doctors and nurses at the clinic fail to report the obvious sexual abuse of that little girl. There should have been cops crawling all over me about that. Then the biggest was the girl that had to be hospitalized for a bleeding disorder which required multiple transfusions among other treatment, no sign of any cops or welfare agents to be seen or heard from. And to top it off I had no money to pay for any of the hospital services.

I came to the conclusion I was just a tool used to help those kids. A willing tool but a tool non the less. So the only credit I take any more is the fact I would be willing to do it all over again if it meant helping just one of those kids.

REP
Updated:

@Jim S


In my state of residence, anyone having sexual relations with someone under 16 years of age is a felon and, if convicted, must register as a sex offender.


I recall reading about a man who was arrested, charged, tried, and found guilty for having sex with an underaged female, who legally was his wife.

ETA: the guy also had to register as a sex offender.

Replies:   docholladay  Joe Long
docholladay

@REP

I recall reading about a man who was arrested, charged, tried, and found guilty for having sex with an underaged female, who legally was his wife.


I have no reason to judge him based on the ages. If they married for the right reason then he was innocent.

In the example I gave the girl's parents declared she was an "Old Maid" at the age of 13. The man they married her off to kicked her out at the age of 14 because "She was too old". I will leave it to everyone's imagination what she went through and then she lived on the streets for over a year before I either met her, or was led to her. I am not sure any more since it was not one of my normal hangouts at that time. Looking back there were just too many weird events involved with her. One the instant trust she had for me. Two the way the medical clinic never reported her case to either the police or any other official agency. Three the way any thing she needed was almost instantly available even when I did not have the money or contacts to provide them. And that was the tip of that iceberg. There were others over the years as well, I took the credit until I looked at all the weird events connecting each of them.

Replies:   REP  REP
REP

@docholladay

I have no reason to judge him based on the ages.

If I recall, at the time of his arrest, she was almost 17 and he was 19.

REP

@docholladay

I have no reason to judge him based on the ages.

If I recall, at the time of his arrest, she was almost 17 and he was 19.

Replies:   docholladay
docholladay

@REP

Heck based on that if I was on the jury he would have been innocent. That close in ages means they were probably mates in high school as well maybe even longer. Definitely innocent.

Replies:   Not_a_ID  REP
Not_a_ID
Updated:

@docholladay


Heck based on that if I was on the jury he would have been innocent. That close in ages means they were probably mates in high school as well maybe even longer. Definitely innocent.


Jury nullification isn't an option courts normally bring up as options a jury can pursue. Depending on circumstances though, I could agree with going either way on that. Inclined towards benefit of the doubt, but I'm also more a spirit of the law vs letter type. Which when paired with viewing morality and legality to not be inherently mutually inclusive, and a code which will lead to morality trumping legality on personal choices, it makes for good times for all.

It is probable they married in another state(where it was legal) and either moved to a new one, or returned to their home state after playing legality tourist. (Which can be a Federal Crime in some cases)

Joe Long

@docholladay

Its why you always see them delaying the forced entry when serving a warrant as well as yelling so loud about being the police.


When they believe the resident can defend themselves the police are increasingly not giving notice

When presenting a search warrant to a judge in a drug case, police will often include the possibility of guns


In this case no charges were brought against a person who killed a police officer raiding his house unannounced.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/no-knock-police-raid-ends-in-blazing-tragedy/

In another, the resident was shot 22 times and killed after the police set off flash bangs and busted down his door.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/26/jose-guerena_n_3988658.html

In both cases, it was because of marijuana. I have problems with drugs. I also have problems with the war on drugs.

Replies:   docholladay
Joe Long

@REP

I recall reading about a man who was arrested, charged, tried, and found guilty for having sex with an underaged female, who legally was his wife.

ETA: the guy also had to register as a sex offender.


I recall a couple years ago what may have been the case you're referring to. I believe it was in Nebraska where they boyfriend was maybe 20 and the girl 15 (ages I may have been guilty of pre-Reagan) They went to another state to get married when she was 16, but the home state DA still wanted to prosecute because they had sex (she may have been pregnant) before they were married, so they DA claimed that didn't shield the guy.

It wasn't always this way. I have a newspaper clipping in my genealogy files of a 1924 wedding announcement. In Pennsylvania anyone under 21 had to get parent's permission to marry, butt hat was not the case in neighboring Maryland, and many young couples simply crossed the state line.

COUNTY COUPLE IN ELOPEMENT
William Stiffler and Miss Mildred Garmon Wed in Cumberland, Md.

Two young residents of Uniontown eloped on Tuesday, March 25th [1924], to Cumberland, Md. The bride was Miss Mildred Lucilla Garmon, daughter of Mr. and Mrs. H. Garmon. She just celebrated her 14th birthday of February 27th and was a pupil of the 8th grade school at Uniontown. Lucilla was neither tardy of absent from school this term, until her wedding day. She is an attractive and estimable young woman.

The bridegroom is Mr. William Blair Stiffler a former sailor, having served in the U. S. Navy for four years. He is well and favorably known in the community.

No one suspected an elopement and it was a surprise to all her friends., even her parents not knowing of it until twelve hours later. She had asked permission to spend the night with a friend but went to Cumberland instead.

Replies:   REP
docholladay

@Joe Long

Notice I also said it was a defense tactic. One the defense lawyers could use to either get a charge dropped or to defeat the charge in a court of law.

Its that defense tactic which causes the delay not the question of what is legal or not. What good comes of charging a person with a crime if it can be beaten in a court case.

Its like those cops who knew I set up that guy to be robbed and beaten bad enough to put him in a hospital with major injuries. They KNEW what I did and HOW I did it. But they could not PROVE I was SOBER instead of DRUNK at the time I was supposedly crying in my beer in that bar. All they had was a case of their word against mine with no real usable court evidence.

Its like I changed tactics from then on in my activities. Like the time I helped a young girl runaway from home. The only evidence available to them was my name and address written on a piece of paper, hidden in her bedroom. The name and address was a setup to send them in the wrong direction and to notify me that she had put the plan in motion.
Cops were searching for her in the wrong state and along potential routes to my location. They even came to my residence asking about her and my involvement with her. I do believe they were also having my mail watched for potential contacts (very funny for me). I was laughing at them as they asked me about my involvement with her. I had a damned good idea of where she had gone and what her plans were however, I did not tell the cops a thing about those plans. (statute of limitations will not allow me to be charged at this time)

REP

@docholladay

Definitely innocent.


I agree. Unfortunately, the way the law was written in that state, it did not exclude him due to marriage.

Replies:   docholladay
docholladay

@REP

He should appeal the sentence in my opinion if needed all the way to the supreme court level.

sejintenej
Updated:

@Jim S


I sometimes think that legislators keep on passing laws so that everyone, somewhere (unless a monk and maybe not even then) ends up liable for prosecution. Just another way to control the populace


A senior UK Police officer stated publicly a long time ago that everybody breaks 30 laws before they get to their place of work in the morning. Often the police have discretion as to whether to act but there are a few normal and common (apparently innocuous) actions for which they must arrest and charge the perpetrator.

Replies:   Dominions Son
REP

@Joe Long

I recall a couple years ago what may have been the case you're referring to


That sounds familiar, so it is probably the case I remembered. I recall the essence of the article I read and I saw the article about 2 years ago, but I don't remember all the details. I seem to recall that the DA didn't bring charges until about 2 years after they married.

The attitude of the Nebraska DA seems totally different from the Uniontown DA. I suspect Uniontown refers to Uniontown, PA since Cumberland is only about 60 miles away. Do you think the difference is a regional attitudes, bible belt versus New England? Of course the Nebraska DA may have been up for election.

Replies:   Joe Long
Dominions Son

@sejintenej

A senior UK Police officer stated publicly a long time ago that everybody breaks 30 laws before they get to their place of work in the morning.


A Former Senior FBI agent wrote a book titled Three Felonies a Day in which he wrote that it's impossible for any US citizen to get through the day without committing at least three felonies.

Joe Long

@REP

The attitude of the Nebraska DA seems totally different from the Uniontown DA. I suspect Uniontown refers to Uniontown, PA since Cumberland is only about 60 miles away.


Yes, Pennsylvania, but it was also 90 years ago. Conservatives and Christians were more worried about sex outside of marriage. Lately, in search of victims, the Left has become Puritanical on age.

So yes, in the 1970's, I went out with a 13yo girl when I was 19 and a 15yo when I was 21. It was no secret. I brought the 15 yo home for dinner to meet dad. He thought she was immature, but her parents loved me. He suggested the 15yo that lived down the street.

docholladay

As far as sexual relationships go, I have always felt that the heart and mind were more important than the calendar years. I think of the laws on these things as a guide to making the right judgement call, but not the perfect end all. I like seeing the young protected, but the law is not always the right answer.

Replies:   Joe Long
Joe Long

@docholladay

As far as sexual relationships go, I have always felt that the heart and mind were more important than the calendar years.


Both physically and mentally mature. Neither is tied strictly to a calendar. Some never mature mentally.

Replies:   docholladay
docholladay

@Joe Long

Both physically and mentally mature. Neither is tied strictly to a calendar. Some never mature mentally.


yes but there are exceptions. for mentally mature, they have to know the risks and accept them. for physically that is self-explanatory. I remember a patient at that so-called hospital I was at. She was physically 30 years old (I believe). Because of some accident or something her mental age was about 5 years old. One of the male employees used his passkey to gain access to her room during graveyard shift. He fucked her and when confronted by other patients said: "Your word against mine and yours will not count". Physically she was old enough, but mentally she didn't even know what he was doing, just that it "Hurt". To me and many other patients (Inmates) that was rape. But no charges could be brought against him since the only witnesses were Inmates/patients. Inmates was the term applied to the patients.
He eventually was arrested for stealing huge quantities of drugs for distribution. He of course said he was Framed. But access to the drug storage required the usage of one of those Passkeys. Inmates did not have that access. A 10 year old kid however could open any lock in the place with a hair comb usually among other locks. And would do so for other inmates for a coke and a candy bar.

Joe Long

I meant to say "Emotionally" instead of "Mentally" but both are apt. You are quite correct in your observation. Whether in a romantic or sexual relationship, one has to be old enough to consent - and this is one of the responsibilities of parents, whenever present.

My point was that you should also want to restrict your relationships to people who are emotionally mature enough for the things they'll be dealing with. I believe relationships need to be grounded in mutual respect and with that is a presumption of equality between the partners.

That's a large part of the theme of my story, posted here, that I will get finished one of these days. Joe's 19 and Hannah's 14. Before they got together, neither had dated or gotten past making out - but being in his social circles gets her into situations she's not prepared to cope with at her age.

Replies:   docholladay
docholladay

@Joe Long

Heck that is what gets both the "pro-lifers" and the "abortion rights" people mad at me. The only side I pick is the right to have all the current information as to the girl/woman's options being given freely to her. After that its her decision not mine or anyone else, group or individual. My only right is to try and make sure all the information is available to her not just one side of it.

Replies:   Joe Long
Joe Long

@docholladay

My only right is to try and make sure all the information is available to her not just one side of it.


I'm very much in favor of people being free to make their own decisions based on informed consent. Thaw law says that for most things people under some selected age aren't mature enough to decide even when having sufficient facts at their disposal. Some do, some don't. I don't like the blanket laws that juvenilize everyone.

Also, regarding abortion
1 The decision is to terminate what many believe is another person's life, and that should only be done in self defense (kill to save from being killed)
2 Despite claiming that young adults are incapable of deciding on many subjects, the pro-choice advocates get laws passed that for this subject, those who've barely passed puberty are allowed, even encouraged, to make these life-changing decisions on their own, not only without parental input but often requiring that parents not be notified. How abortion has been implemented turns much established legal procedures on their head.

Replies:   docholladay
docholladay
Updated:

@Joe Long


1 The decision is to terminate what many believe is another person's life, and that should only be done in self defense (kill to save from being killed)


What about the rights of the girl/woman who must carry the baby to term regardless of her wishes. I had a second cousin who got pregnant as a result of being raped.

She was given the option, but the clinic gave her all the information available at that time both for and against abortion. Sent her home to review and think it over for 2 weeks. She made her decision based on that information and what she thought was right. I know what she chose, but that was her business not any group or association legal or otherwise.

I don't believe anyone has the right to force that choice either for or against abortion. There is right and wrong on both sides of that issue. Just I believe the final decision has to be the girl/woman's not anyone else's.

edited to add: Think of this little fact. Abortions will be performed regardless of the laws. I have heard of them being done with a clothes hanger.

Replies:   Joe Long  Jim S  sejintenej
Joe Long

@docholladay

What about the rights of the girl/woman who must carry the baby to term regardless of her wishes. I had a second cousin who got pregnant as a result of being raped.


When rights are in conflict there must be some proportionality. The right to life is always at the top of the list. It's generally accepted to weigh one life against another, but not to take a life for a lesser reason.

I realize it's a very difficult and painful decision. Except for rape, the pregnancy was a result of her decisions. But even then, why is a child of rape less deserving of life than another? If anyone should die, I'd rather kill the rapist as he's the guilty party.

richardshagrin

It seems likely abortions will occur whether legal or not. If illegal, many of them will be performed by criminals who are not competent to do so, and the mother risks her own life or future fertility. That was the unpleasant situation before abortion became legal. "When guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns." When abortions are illegal in a state, only relatively wealthy women will have them by traveling to locations where they are legal. Do unwanted children grow up to be good citizens? Or even happy? If the right to life applies to people who have not been born, or even haven't grown to a point where they could live if they were born, why aren't women required to have lots more children? Every menstrual period is a potential unborn child.

Replies:   Joe Long
Jim S
Updated:

@docholladay


What about the rights of the girl/woman who must carry the baby to term regardless of her wishes.


Nobody advocates that she be killed. Not even rabid abortion foes. Unlike the life she terminates. Seems kinda unbalanced, dontchyathink?

sejintenej

@docholladay

I don't believe anyone has the right to force that choice either for or against abortion. There is right and wrong on both sides of that issue. Just I believe the final decision has to be the girl/woman's not anyone else's.

There was a case a year or so ago where a pregnant girl was arrested and held because the court decided there was a risk that she would travel to the next country where abortion under such circumstances was legal. Both countries concerned are within the EU

docholladay

@Joe Long

I realize it's a very difficult and painful decision. Except for rape, the pregnancy was a result of her decisions. But even then, why is a child of rape less deserving of life than another? If anyone should die, I'd rather kill the rapist as he's the guilty party.


In other words take away the girl/woman's rights again, thus penalizing her for being a rape victim by forcing her to pay medical bills until the baby is born including the hospital bill for delivering the baby. The girl/woman has no rights according to what you are saying.

I tend to disagree. I only have one right in that regard. That is to make sure the girl/woman has all the available information as to the facts for both sides of the abortion issue without any condemnation of either side. Just the plain unadorned facts. Then let her make up her own mind.

Some will carry the baby to term and give it up for adoption. Others will keep the baby. Some will have an abortion. But in each case its an informed decision based on facts.

Funny part is if its made illegal, the abortions will still be performed in many cases in one way or another. For example some will have an accidental fall or something which will force the fetus to abort. Others will go to the extremes of trying unhealthy methods such as using a stiff piece of wire to abort the baby. That is only two methods I have heard of. Neither of which involves a doctor or any medical facility until something goes wrong and the girl/woman if lucky gets to a hospital in time to save her life. Both methods have been used in the past along with many others.

Replies:   Joe Long
Joe Long

@docholladay

The girl/woman has no rights according to what you are saying.


I'm saying that we, in other matters, have established a high bar for consenting to the taking of a life.

Replies:   sejintenej
awnlee jawking

@Joe Long

But even then, why is a child of rape less deserving of life than another?


Why should a rapist be rewarded by having his genes propagated to another generation which, after all, is the ultimate goal of life?

AJ

Replies:   Joe Long
Joe Long

@awnlee jawking

Why should a rapist be rewarded by having his genes propagated to another generation which, after all, is the ultimate goal of life?


The rapist should be punished, no rewards.

Why should the child, who did nothing, be killed?

Replies:   awnlee jawking
Joe Long
Updated:

@richardshagrin


"When guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns."


Leaving unarmed citizens at the mercy of the criminals.

If the right to life applies to people who have not been born, or even haven't grown to a point where they could live if they were born, why aren't women required to have lots more children? Every menstrual period is a potential unborn child.


The US Congress is currently considering legislation to restrict abortion past the point of viability (20 weeks) and there is strong opposition from abortion rights advocates.

My semen and a woman's menstrual fluids do not have human form, distinct DNA, and don't have detectable and measurable heart and brain activity. A new human, growing in it's mother's womb, nourished through an umbilical cord, that after a point can survive outside the womb.

REP

Then there are the aspects of maturity and responsibility, which are often left out of the abortion decision process. The law says that a child becomes an adult at 18 years of age. That does not mean the child has matured to the point that they understand and are able to cope with the responsibility that comes with their decisions. A person usually develops that level of maturity and responsibility in their late-20s or early-30s.

Kids 15 years old and younger have sex. I doubt that the boy and girl understand the full consequences that go along with their actions. Yes they know sex can lead to pregnancy, but they never think of how they are going to pay for raising the child if the girl becomes pregnant. It is their desire to do "adult things" and the emotions they feel when engaging in sexual activities that drive them. They choose to place themselves in situations that can lead to giving in to their sexual desires. Pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases are among the many consequences of their actions. If a 15-yo girl gets pregnant, the boy will probably say it's not my fault and problem. The girl is not capable of properly caring for and supporting the child. Once born, the child will become the responsibility of the girl's parents.

Abortion is not a good means of birth control, but I do know of one of my daughter's friends who would engage is under age sex without using preventative methods to prevent pregnancy. If what my daughter told my wife is true, her friend had at least 5 abortions before she was 20. What we need in this country is to have adults accept young kids will have sex and have the adults focus on educating and helping young kids to prevent unwanted pregnancies. That will carry over into adulthood and hopefully reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

People focus on the legal and moral issues of someone terminating an unwanted pregnancy. What about the legal and moral issues of a country training a young soldier to kill and then sending them off to war where they will kill other people. Killing another person is wrong in both cases. We need to find abortion and war unacceptable and stop the practices, or we have to accept that there are reasons that make war and abortion acceptable to some extent.

docholladay

@REP

One thing I liked about the clinic my second cousin went to was the fact they gave her all the facts. They even had her watch a film of an actual abortion. Then they made her wait for 2 weeks before making an appointment for the abortion.

Sure my preference was to let the baby live. But I had no right to force that choice on her. The only right I had even as a relative was to make sure she had all the informative facts available concerning all of the options. The final choice was hers however not mine.

Dominions Son

@REP

I doubt that the boy and girl understand the full consequences that go along with their actions.


If they don't it's because their parents haven't taught them.

A few hundred years ago, an unmarried 15 year old girl would have been considered a spinster.

Replies:   Joe Long
Joe Long

@REP

What about the legal and moral issues of a country training a young soldier to kill and then sending them off to war where they will kill other people. Killing another person is wrong in both cases.


There is the concept of a just war, when it is waged in self defense. People may differ in judgment, but most can agree we can defend ourselves.

Regardless, killing is a traumatic experience for the vast majority, even when justified. Our troops require quite a bit of psychological help afterwards. It's not something they brag about or even like to talk about.

In abortion, the child has done nothing but exist. Sometimes that existence threaten's the mother's life and self defense can be used as a justification.

Yes, teens have sex, often times without considering the consequences. I believe in personal responsibility which features incentives to "do the right thing."

Getting back to some of the things discussed earlier in this thread, my book is about two teens, one a socially awkward older boy, the other a younger girl, both inexperienced. She gets "in trouble" and has an abortion that he doesn't learn about until later. Regardless of my personal opinions, I have tried hard to let both characters express their positions to each other in a realistic way. I have a draft of that scene and am willing to share.

Joe Long
Updated:

@Dominions Son


A few hundred years ago, an unmarried 15 year old girl would have been considered a spinster.


I think that's a myth. I've done a lot of genealogy work in search my ancestors & relatives, both in America and Germany and the UK.

The period where I found girls marrying the earliest was from the 1930's to 1950's in the US (at least in Pennsylvania.) Prior to that, in the 1700's and 1800's, most girls married between 18 and 21, the guys between 21 and 25. It wasn't that unusual for a girl to have one child before she married someone else, but multiple children were rare.

I have a database of birth, marriage and death records for an entire parish in North Yorkshire from the late 1500's to the mid 1800's, as well as samples from all over England. The ages at marriage are very similar to what I fund in Pennsylvania.

I'm not making any claims before those records, which begin 400-500 years ago.

Joe Long

@REP

we have to accept that there are reasons that make war and abortion acceptable to some extent.


We should need a damn good reason before we're allowed to kill other people, and it's not just that the target end sup dead but we can also end up damaged from the experience - unless we deny the humanity of the target to keep our conscience clean. Apes, pigs, gooks, chinks, blobs of tissue.

Replies:   REP
awnlee jawking

@Joe Long

You said the rapist shouldn't be rewarded, so he shouldn't be rewarded by his genes reaching another generation as a result of his crime.

It's misleading to call a foetus a child because it's a long way from passing the tests for sentience. It's not killing a child, it's killing a clump of cells.

AJ

Replies:   Dominions Son  Joe Long
Dominions Son

@awnlee jawking

It's misleading to call a foetus a child because it's a long way from passing the tests for sentience.


It's a genetically distinct organism of genus Homo Sapiens. Whether you want to call it a child or not, it's not just a clump of cells, it's a distinct living organism.

Joe Long

@awnlee jawking

You said the rapist shouldn't be rewarded, so he shouldn't be rewarded by his genes reaching another generation as a result of his crime.


Faint reward, especially if he has to pay 18 years old child support with no visitation (I'd wish so) while he's doing hard time


It's not killing a child, it's killing a clump of cells.


The bill before the US congress right now severely limits abortion after 20 weeks. Long before that the fetus has a distinctly human form, a beating heart and a functioning brain. When the heart and brain of a born human stop, we declare them dead. If they are functioning, I feel safe calling them alive. After 20 weeks, it's viable outside the womb (with medical assistance).

Calling that a lump of cells is denying science.

docholladay

@Joe Long

That is the same as making the girl/woman a slave without any right to decide what is done with her own body.

In other words you would remove her rights because they might not agree with your belief. What gives you or congress the right to force that choice. What it will do is force them to go back to the forms that put their lives at risk. The abortions will still be done anyway.

Replies:   Joe Long
awnlee jawking

@Joe Long

I believe in the UK doctors won't attempt to prolong the life of a premature foetus born before 23 weeks because the chances of survival with a reasonable quality of life are infinitesimal.

At 20 weeks, a foetus can't recognise itself in a mirror, can't use language and can't perform acts of altruism - it fails the tests of sentience.

If women don't want to reward their rapist by propagating his genes, I'm quite happy if they choose to abort. I'm also comfortable if they choose not to abort because I'm not a fan of eugenics.

AJ

Replies:   Joe Long
Joe Long

@awnlee jawking

At 20 weeks, a foetus can't recognise itself in a mirror, can't use language and can't perform acts of altruism - it fails the tests of sentience.


At 20 weeks after birth, a human cant' do those things either.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
Joe Long

@docholladay

That is the same as making the girl/woman a slave without any right to decide what is done with her own body.


With the exception of rape, she got her body into that condition with her own decisions, and now we're dealing with when it's permissible to kill another human being.

I think we're done. I'm repeating, as you have about five times over.

Geek of Ages

@Joe Long

After 20 weeks, it's viable outside the womb


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah.

No.

Replies:   Jim S
awnlee jawking

@Joe Long

I think the language test is open to question, although babies communicate in a way not readily accessible to adults, but I agree about the other two.

AJ

sejintenej

@Joe Long

The girl/woman has no rights according to what you are saying.

I'm saying that we, in other matters, have established a high bar for consenting to the taking of a life.

OK so if it is agreed that the foetus should not be aborted then surely the father (if necessary established by DNA analysis) should be FORCED to contribute at least 50% to the child's upbringing until it is 18 years of age even if the mother marries someone else.
Should the father fail to so contribute then a) if he is under 18 his family must pay (because they should have taught him better) or b) if he is over 18 he should be put in a debtor's prison or his total income seized and the appropriate amount passed to the mother.

Replies:   Joe Long
docholladay
Updated:

I highly approve the methods that abortion clinic my second cousin went to. The methods are as follows:

1: Make the potential patient watch a film of an actual abortion. (The horror of this film does tend to influence towards having the baby.)

2: Give literature on all the options even the pro-life ones. Listing all the facts both the good and the bad ones. (Unbiased facts)

3: Make the patient go home with that literature to study and think over her options for 2 weeks before making the final decision.

I will admit like I said before I would prefer that the baby is given a chance, but also its not my right to force that choice. The only possible right I have in that regard is to see the girl/woman has all the available facts not just the facts that bias my preference.

edited to add: This should show that my major bias tends towards giving the knowledge rather than the decision itself. That even applies to the so-called sex-education areas as well. Without knowledge many problems will continue to crop up with teenage pregnancy being just one of the many problems.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
Joe Long

@sejintenej

OK so if it is agreed that the foetus should not be aborted then surely the father (if necessary established by DNA analysis) should be FORCED to contribute at least 50% to the child's upbringing until it is 18 years of age even if the mother marries someone else.


I like it

Replies:   docholladay
docholladay

@Joe Long

Same here with the additional condition that under no circumstances will a rapist or his family ever receive custody or visitation rights to the child.

REP

@Joe Long

We should need a damn good reason before we're allowed to kill other people,


I agree. Violence is not the best solution to a problem. I favor a diplomatic solution of talking the problem to death. But if a fight is inevitable, I don't believe in giving the other guy the opportunity to strike the first major blow. I would be willing to wait for my adversary to throw a jab, but then I would go all out to flatten them.

On an individual level, the only viable reason I can accept is someone is actively in the process of trying to kill or harm me or those I care about.

On a national level, I would accept another country attacking and attempting to kill or harm the residents of my country to be adequate reason to kill those who are attacking my country and the people who sent them here to kill us.

awnlee jawking

@docholladay

1: Make the potential patient watch a film of an actual abortion. (The horror of this film does tend to influence towards having the baby.)


Presumably that was balanced by a film of a woman going through the pain of childbirth and the after-effects on her body, including all the things that could go wrong.

AJ

Replies:   docholladay
docholladay
Updated:

@awnlee jawking


Presumably that was balanced by a film of a woman going through the pain of childbirth and the after-effects on her body, including all the things that could go wrong.


Nope just the abortion. Its why I thought it was closer to a real life horror film. But that was my opinion. Funny part was it was an abortion clinic that did that, not one of the right-to-life groups. That was only required for the patients where the abortion was considered as an option. Life or death abortions did not have that requirement. All of the mentioned steps were the abortion clinics requirements before setting up an appointment for the abortion procedure. Funny they were still getting all those darn protestors as well.

I have the same attitude about many things. Give the kids the facts without bias showing both the good side and the bad side. Sex for example is an instinctive activity which is almost impossible to stop. But the right knowledge might just decrease the risk of pregnancy, of course that knowledge is denied because of religious and social reasons mainly.

edited to add: That clinic had to have at least two forms filled out and signed by the patient. A permission form to allow her abortion to be filmed. A release form allowing the film to be shown to other potential patients. That is if the film was done at the clinic. Same for a patient going through childbirth at another hospital or clinic with one possible additional form: A permission form for the film to be made at their hospital (not sure of this one). I know there are legal requirements to share any patient's information with anyone.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@docholladay

Give the kids the facts without bias showing both the good side and the bad side.


IMO the clinic failed that criterion. Giving birth can result in life-altering changes to a woman's body. IMO every woman, not just rape victims, should be told about the cosmetic and physical deleterious effects of carrying a baby to term.

By far the largest proportion of the NHS's medical negligence bill is racked up by maternity services and there have been no improvements in maternity statistics (eg mortality, brain damage) in the last 25 years.

AJ

Replies:   docholladay  Joe Long
docholladay

@awnlee jawking

Sure it failed to actually show the other side in a film, but that was due to laws concerning a person's medical history. Those laws require those permission forms in order to be shared. Courts in some cases can override those requirements but only under certain conditions. The clinic did list all the pro's and con's for each choice in writing however since that method did not reference actual case histories. Maybe not as good as the film but the information was given.

Replies:   docholladay
Joe Long

@awnlee jawking

IMO every woman, not just rape victims, should be told about the cosmetic and physical deleterious effects of carrying a baby to term.


Preferably before they make choices that can result in pregnancy. Also, although those things can happen, their rate of incidence is low, especially compared to the success rate of an abortion.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@Joe Long

Preferably before they make choices that can result in pregnancy.


A strong 'Hear! Hear!' to that. I can't believe that parents in the UK are allowed to pull their kids out of sex-ed classes, although the govt has made noises about closing that loophole. One problem is with Asian girls, because the 'men' of the family are supposed to teach them, so the measure could be considered racist.

I'm pretty sure every woman experiences some deleterious effects, even if it's only stretch marks and a flabby tummy. I don't have figures to hand for the likes of morning sickness, pre-eclampsia, stress incontinence, loss of sensitivity down below, post-natal depression etc etc, but once we develop a way of growing babies in vitro, I think most women will happily forego the experience of naturally carrying a baby to term :(

AJ

richardshagrin

If the mother to be is named Nancy, Pregnancy is redundant. Regnancy is a word, related to being a regnant.
"reg·nant
ˈreɡnənt
adjective
1.
reigning; ruling.
"a queen regnant"
2.
currently having the greatest influence; dominant.
"the regnant belief"

If you have to pee a lot, you may be P regnant.

Jim S

@Geek of Ages

@Joe Long
After 20 weeks, it's viable outside the womb

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah.

No.


I think you need to add a couple of weeks to that, Joe. The earliest recorded birth that I could find where the baby actually survived and left the hospital is 21 weeks, 6 days.

Admittedly, it took extraordinary effort for the baby's survival. But probably nowheres near what it takes in treating a patient with third degree burns over a wide area of the body.

Which begs the question, at least for me. Who chooses which one lives and which one dies? And isn't any baby who reaches at least 21 weeks, 6 days of gestation entitled to life outside the womb (as it already has life inside the womb)? And is there any age of the baby at which terminating a pregnancy isn't actually cold, premeditated first-degree murder by both the mother and the abortionist? Heady questions.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
docholladay

@docholladay

Sure it failed to actually show the other side in a film, but that was due to laws concerning a person's medical history.


I need to add that Abortion Clinics have to constantly obey all the health laws. One big law covers the patient's medical records, of which any films are included. There is a major legal reason why every time you see a new doctor or specialist, their office requires you to fill out "Release Forms" those forms allow the sharing of your medical records from other Doctors and/or hospitals. It takes one signed release per doctor or hospital to be legal. Those releases can not be photo copies either. Without that release form the doctor or hospital or other medical practitioner is subject to 1: Civil Law Suite, 2: Criminal charges resulting in prison time and loss of licenses to practice medicine. The consequences of sharing a patient's medical records in any form when proved can be huge in more ways than one.

Replies:   Joe Long
Joe Long

@docholladay

I need to add that Abortion Clinics have to constantly obey all the health laws.


Because if they continually fail to do so, they may end up closed.

awnlee jawking

@Jim S

And is there any age of the baby at which terminating a pregnancy isn't actually cold, premeditated first-degree murder by both the mother and the abortionist?


If a thug punches a pregnant woman in the stomach, killing the foetus, in the UK they can't be charged with murder. So there is no foetal age at which abortion is murder.

Granted, there are a few exceptions, but for many/most women, choosing whether to have an abortion or not is one of the hardest decisions of their lives, often a lose-lose situation. I think those women should be supported whatever choice they make, and trying to make them feel guilty by condemning them with incorrect, emotive language helps nobody.

AJ

Replies:   Jim S  Joe Long
Jim S
Updated:

@awnlee jawking


If a thug punches a pregnant woman in the stomach, killing the foetus, in the UK they can't be charged with murder. So there is no foetal age at which abortion is murder.


I think you're confusing the law with both right-and-wrong and justice.

ETA: As an addendum, I'll refer anyone to Thornfoote's story Linda's Posse. She's wreaking havoc in the criminal world vigilante style but every one she eliminates is justly removed. Yet she is breaking the law.

Any semblance between law and right-and-wrong and/or justice is purely coincidental.

robberhands

@Jim S

I think you're confusing the law with both right-and-wrong and justice.

Luckily there are many others around here, who are certain of their doubtless knowledge about what's right and what's wrong.

Joe Long

@awnlee jawking

If a thug punches a pregnant woman in the stomach, killing the foetus, in the UK they can't be charged with murder. So there is no foetal age at which abortion is murder.


They can is some states in the US, even in states that are quite permissive regarding abortions.

That shows how subjective this is. The mother gets to identify the fetus she carries as human or not.

awnlee jawking

@Jim S

ETA: As an addendum, I'll refer anyone to Thornfoote's story Linda's Posse. She's wreaking havoc in the criminal world vigilante style but every one she eliminates is justly removed. Yet she is breaking the law.


It's a fairytale, painting people as either pure white or pure black. Reality is far different. For example, Colombian drug lords do a vast amount of good for their people, using the funds from their poison to improve the living conditions and education standards of their people in areas there's no other source of funding available. Linda would kill them all. Is that really the right thing to do?

AJ

Replies:   Jim S  REP
Jim S

@awnlee jawking

Reality is far different. For example, Colombian drug lords do a vast amount of good for their people, using the funds from their poison to improve the living conditions and education standards of their people in areas there's no other source of funding available. Linda would kill them all. Is that really the right thing to do?

Short answer? You bet your sweet bippy. Hamas supposedly does humanitarian work. They get a pass too? Sorry. In my book, it IS black and white.

Replies:   Joe Long
Joe Long

@Jim S

Short answer? You bet your sweet bippy. Hamas supposedly does humanitarian work. They get a pass too? Sorry. In my book, it IS black and white.


And Mussolini had the trains run on time. ISIS built schools.

Despite how well they make care of those who swear allegiance, they are still totalitarians without a rule of law who would ruthlessly kill any real or imagined opponents.

awnlee jawking

@Joe Long

Despite how well they make care of those who swear allegiance, they are still totalitarians without a rule of law who would ruthlessly kill any real or imagined opponents.


Yet without them, ordinary people would suffer :(

Look what has happened recently to countries where the leadership has been overthrown. Without Gaddafi, Libya is a total basket-case. Afghanistan is so bad the west is talking about sending troops back in. Refugee camps are packed with people fleeing Syria who have lost everything. Coptic Christians have been massacred in Egypt.

AJ

Replies:   Dominions Son  Joe Long
Dominions Son

@awnlee jawking

Coptic Christians have been massacred in Egypt.


Egyptian Coptic Christians weren't that much better off under the old military regime

Joe Long

@awnlee jawking

Yet without them, ordinary people would suffer :(


and ordinary people suffered with them.

For a long time in my youth I didn't understand the foreign policy reverence for 'stability.' You might have a country with little rule of law, minorities being targeted and the population being generally terrorized. But it's stable, so we didn't want to meddle in their internal affairs.

Now I can confess to being witness to what the 'Arab Spring' has done to stability in the last decade.

I believe one of the big problems in recent execution of policy is not understanding that "If you break it, you own it." Instability is not good. Witness a 12-sided war in Syria. If there's a reason to overthrow a government, you better damn well have a plan for replacing it, not just walk away and wipe your hands before the dictator's blood is dry. Which means it's a major deal to get done and shouldn't be entered into lightly.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Joe Long

The reason for not meddling with stable countries is that no matter how bad it is, even if you have a plan for replacing the existing government before going in and toppling it, you can never be absolutely certain you won't make the situation worse than it already is.

I's pure hubris to think we can build a stable government from scratch in a culture we don't fully understand (and the necessary understanding would take a lifetime of study).

Replies:   GITW
REP

@awnlee jawking

For example, Colombian drug lords do a vast amount of good for their people


The drug lords harm millions of people to make their money. They may spend a small amount of their gains to help their local people, but that does not makeup for the harm they do by selling their product.

I also suspect these are the same drug lords who assassinate the Columbian politicians and police who oppose their illegal actions.

GITW

@Dominions Son

I agree. No matter how much the people of any country fight amongst themselves; they will fight even more vehemently against any government imposed upon them by outsiders.

awnlee jawking

@Joe Long

Is there a clear demarcation between those Linda should kill and those she shouldn't? If you see everything in black and white, then yes. For those who take a more nuanced view, what about the likes of Kim Jong-un, Donald Trump, Robert Mugabe? Even Queen Elizabeth has done some pretty disgusting things to help keep her rapacious grip on power - locking up embarrassing relatives for life in mental hospitals, condoning Charles and Philip breaking their marriage vows, breaking up family relationships she considered didn't further the firm's interest, supporting her ne'er do well children and banning the UK press from showing Kate Middleton's tits.

AJ

Replies:   Jim S  Joe Long
Jim S
Updated:

@awnlee jawking


For those who take a more nuanced view, what about the likes of Kim Jong-un, Donald Trump, Robert Mugabe?


Uh, excuse me? You're equating the Trumpster with killers Kim and Mugabe? Jeez. Talk about moral equivalence with a vengeance. Needless to say, it's inaccurate as all get out.

.... and banning the UK press from showing Kate Middleton's tits.


You're right. That's unforgivable of Her Highness.

Joe Long

@awnlee jawking

banning the UK press from showing Kate Middleton's tits.


Kate's face is enough for me. Boobs are overrated.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Joe Long

Boobs are overrated.


Heretic!

Joe Long

We've gone well past search warrant to abortion and boobs (but no silly puns).

As it's obvious that those here have some divergent views on abortion, I'd like to offer this draft of part of a scene I'm writing, to see if people 'on the other side' of this issue think I'm giving it a fair enough portrayal.

The narrator had been told a few weeks earlier by his mother and had a bit of a emotional meltdown. This here is the first time these two have seen each other since, and for a while before that as well. For a variety of reasons, the abortion being one of the early ones, and the drinking has been building for several months, her mother found her passed out drunk and was taken to the hospital for possible alcohol poisoning.

Mom came out of Hannah's room and reached out to lightly stroke my upper arm. With Aunt Janet standing behind her, still keeping a distance, Mom said, "we're going down to the cafeteria for dinner. You gonna be okay?"

I nodded and watched them recede down the hallway, then made my way back into the room and deposited myself on the upholstered chair.

Other than a gentle rise and fall of the blanket covering her chest, she displayed no movement. She was pale, with no makeup, and her sweating looking hair lay in twisted strands. Her left arm was at her side, on top of the covers and palm up, as a plastic tube carrying intravenous fluids wound its way from a bag suspended from a wheeled metal stand down to a needle inserted in and taped down to her forearm. The tears streamed down my cheeks.as I stared and thought about how beautiful she still looked.

As quietly as possible, I got up and slid the chair right next to the bed. Again seated but then able to lean on the bed, I reached out to my left and slid my hand under hers, my fingers between hers. My scalp tingled as I considered how long it had been since we had even touched. She was still so warm and soft to hold.

With nothing to do but wait, with the only sounds being the background din of conversations from people down the hall, it wasn't long before my brain started shutting down as if in a hypnotic trance, creating an irresistible urge to simply fall asleep until something changed.

And change it did. Whatever I may have been dreaming about evaporated as I suddenly became aware of the growing pressure on my hand. As I struggled to regain my wits and lift my head, I heard a hoarse whisper. "Hey."

Her eyes were open as she struggled to maintain a weak smile. Righting myself in the chair, I replied, "Hey. You're awake."

"Yeah, I think so." She glanced around the room. "Is it just you?"

"Right now. Mom and…your mom, they went out a bit ago to get something to eat."

"Yeah…okay. What time is it?"

I looked up, then pointed at the clock above the bathroom door. "Just past six."

Hannah nodded but fell silent as she gazed out into the hallway. Her face tightened and she turned back to me. "We had a baby."

I closed my eyes and dropped my head. "I know. Mom told me…a few weeks ago."

"I named him Ben."

I winced as my chest and arms tightened in pain while my head snapped back up "Wait – how do you know…"

"I don't. It's just that whenever I think of him, that's what I see."

My fingers were still laced with hers as she spun her face towards the wall and went silent. There I sat while all the things that I might have said ran circles around the inside of my skull. When she bit her lip and squeezed my hand I whispered simply, "It'll be okay."

Hannah pulled her hand away and scooted up on the bed. Turning her gaze back at me, she spat, "Right. I nearly killed myself today. Look at me – a god damn fifteen year old drunk who aborted her baby."

Tears welled up in my eyes. "I thought…they made you."

"Yeah, not like I had much choice." With the I.V. still attached to her arm, she waved her hands in circles. "There she goes! Ninth grade mom!"

"Dave and Susie are keeping theirs. I…if I'd known…I would've done anything. You know I would."

"They're seniors and are talking about getting married. I'm in ninth grade. What was I going to do?"

"I'd've married you. We could've stayed at my house."

"Oh yeah – and listen to your Dad rag us every day. Raising a family in your bedroom."

"Or your place. It's bigger"

"My mom's still wanting to rip your balls off for what you did."

"I've got a job now."

"Three-fifty an hour? Part-time? Maybe we get a bedroom over someone's garage?"

"We could've got past those things, made it work, eventually. This is just so…permanent."

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@Joe Long

'on the other side'


I'm slightly on the pro-life side but I respect that it should be the woman's choice and there should be no issue of guilt either way.

I think the scene is realistic and poignant - I have no problems with it.

Suggestion - sweaty instead of sweating?

AJ

Replies:   Joe Long
Joe Long

@awnlee jawking

Suggestion - sweaty instead of sweating?


Thanks, typo. Still a first draft.

Replies:   docholladay
docholladay
Updated:

@Joe Long


Thanks, typo. Still a first draft.


The scene is fine. I have seen the effects shunning has on a young girl when she has a baby. My second cousin did not take that into consideration when she made her choice. She was shunned by her community. Including her church, her school and the majority of the area where she lived. She did carry that baby to term then put it up for adoption, but the shunning was pure unadulterated torture for her.

edited to correct one word and to add: Weird part was she would have been shunned longer if she had aborted the baby. Definitely a case where she couldn't win regardless of her decision.

Replies:   Geek of Ages  Joe Long
Geek of Ages

@docholladay

Definitely a case where she couldn't win regardless of her decision.


Misogyny casts a long shadow...

Replies:   Jim S
Joe Long

@docholladay

The scene is fine.


Thanks.

She has a negative character arc where the theme is that by being with him she hangs out with mostly 18 to 21 year olds and gets involved in a lot of stuff she isn't ready for. They break up, after which she finds out she's pregnant and doesn't see any options other than termination. Then her brother knocks up his girlfriend. Then they run into her ex at the mall, and he's got a new girl while she's still alone. Then her mom kicks her stepdad out of the house. Lots of shit, and she'd already gotten into drinking and smoking weed before that. Consequently, she's depressed. She's invited to youth group by a friend at school, but doesn't open up because they all seem like they never have any problems and she doesn't think she'll fit in. So she gets the key to the liquor cabinet and empties the bottle.

And those moms at the other site thought I was glamorizing sex with 14 year old girls. No, I torture my characters, all of them. It does end happily for now.

Replies:   richardshagrin
richardshagrin

@Joe Long

I torture my characters

Full BDSM or just S&M?

Replies:   Joe Long
Jim S

@Geek of Ages

@docholladay
Definitely a case where she couldn't win regardless of her decision.

Misogyny casts a long shadow...

doc, don't you mean once she decided to spread her legs without birth control absent the willingness to be responsible for that decision?

Geek, misogyny? Only if you think the above question has no merit whatsoever. Shouldn't women be as responsible for their decisions as well as men? That would be egalitarian, wouldn't it?

awnlee jawking

@Jim S

How can a man go through half of the process of giving birth?

AJ

robberhands

@Jim S

doc, don't you mean once she decided to spread her legs without birth control absent the willingness to be responsible for that decision?

I'd like to understand the question: '... absent the willingness to be responsible for that decision?"

What does that mean? Did she lose fundamental rights because she made a mistake?

Replies:   Jim S  Joe Long
Jim S

@robberhands


What does that mean? Did she lose fundamental rights because she made a mistake?

OK. Let me offer a parallel. Should someone lose his/her fundamental right to freedom after putting a .45 to his/her mother's head and splattering her brains all over her kitchen wall? After all, the poor guy just made a mistake in pulling the trigger, right?

Replies:   robberhands
robberhands

@Jim S

OK. Let me offer a parallel. Should someone lose his/her fundamental right to freedom after putting a .45 to his/her mother's head and splattering her brains all over her kitchen wall? After all, the poor guy just made a mistake in pulling the trigger, right?

What kind of comparison is that? Do you equal a mistake which hurts the woman herself the most with a son intently killing his mother? That's ridiculous.

Replies:   Jim S
Geek of Ages
Updated:

@Jim S


Shouldn't women be as responsible for their decisions as well as men?


Yes, men should be as responsible for the decision to have unprotected sex as women. However, you'll note that what I was replying to placed the ill will of the community entirely on the woman, as does your leading question. There's a fundamental low-level misogyny at work through all of this.

So no, I don't think your question has merit, because its underlying assumptions are fundamentally unethical, not to mention incongruent with reality.

Jim S

@robberhands

Do you equal a mistake which hurts the woman herself ....

Let's deconstruct that.

First, mistake. She willingly opened her legs without birth control. I would call that a fully cognizant act. Please recognize that I'm assuming intent. Rape, whether by violence or date rape drugs, are another issue entirely.

Second, hurts the woman herself. So, if the woman is inconvenienced by an act she willingly commits, then an innocent life can be snuffed? I just can't wrap my head around that logic.

I'm often puzzled at the rationale of Roe v Wade, which found a basis to grant abortion "rights" to women in the 14th Amendment, an amendment written to eliminate and/or stop laws targeting newly freed slaves in the Southern states. Quoting the relevant paragraph of that Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (The due process clause is emphasized)


It's puzzling to me that SCOTUS then goes ahead and denies life to the fetus if the mother wants to end it's life. And, my God, they did it with a straight face. It also seems contradictory in that the fetus is denied equal protection (to life) by this ruling. Must be all those emanations from penumbras our learned betters can divine in laws as written.

Replies:   robberhands
robberhands

@Jim S

First, mistake. She willingly opened her legs without birth control. I would call that a fully cognizant act.

She 'didn't open her legs' to get pregnant. And could you please refrain from that phrase; your mindset is quite obvious without the need to use such derogatory remarks.

You can blame a pair having sex without protection of negligence but you can't pretend they intended to kill anyone. So the foundation of your entire construct is already a fault.

Replies:   Jim S
docholladay

@Jim S

doc, don't you mean once she decided to spread her legs without birth control absent the willingness to be responsible for that decision?


It was proven that she was RAPED and the rapist was never caught to our knowledge. The baby was a result of that rape. So how in the hell did that turn into her deciding to spread her legs?

Replies:   Jim S
Joe Long

@robberhands

Did she lose fundamental rights because she made a mistake?


Is taking responsibility for one's actions. Mistakes have consequences.

When I hit puberty I really wanted to lose my virginity but I was even more scared of getting a girl pregnant and changing the rest of my life. Them came Rose v Wade, and by the time I was in college, that fear had disappeared. She could just get rid of the problem.

Replies:   robberhands
Joe Long

@richardshagrin

Full BDSM or just S&M?


Ha! Good one.

Here's context for the line, "I named him Ben." It's a juxtaposition to a scene 6 months before, back when things were still all fun and games. It was the second time they had sex, and the first with a condom (which she had insisted on after the first time.)

The story is set in 1979, and the unstated reference is to Bonanza, as back then any mention of 'Little Joe' would invariably lead to 'Hoss.'

When I slid a finger inside she yanked on my ear and said, "Ohh, that's enough – let's do it." I stood between her spread knees, my manhood directed straight towards her. She got panicked a look on her face and exclaimed, "Now don't you dare tell me you didn't bring any rubbers."

"They're in my wallet – in my pants." I pointed towards Willie Stargell. "Over there."

"Well, go get them. I don't need any little Joes running around the house."

"You could name him Hoss – or maybe Ben."

I was struck in the face by her panties which she had grabbed off the floor.

"I am so not giving these back." I turned and leaned over to get my wallet from my pants, and when I stuffed the panties inside the pocket I yelled, "Ouch!" as the sound of her hand striking my ass seemed to reverberate off the walls.

Giggling, she scrambled back to the bed, sitting on the edge. I handed her the foil pack. "Here, do your thing!"

"What am I supposed to do with it?"

"You know, open it up and stick it on me. Just don't rip it."

Hannah tore the foil and pulled out the ring of latex that had a thin layer stretched over it's middle. She held it up to the end of my penis and asked, "Like this?"

"Yeah, I guess so. Hold it there, and then start unrolling it." In a minute she had me wrapped the entire way to the base and looked up with a grin. I said, "I hope it feels as good with this thing on."

"It better – now come on, I'm tired of waiting." She lowered herself onto her back and spread her knees wide in anticipation.

Jim S

@docholladay

It was proven that she was RAPED

Wups. My mistake. I confused you with another post in this thread. My comments are all predicated on consensual sex. As I said in another post, rape by whatever means is another matter entirely.

Replies:   docholladay
robberhands

@Joe Long

I'll just line up some of your sentences and emphazise some words:

...taking responsibility for one's actions.

...by the time I was in college, that fear had disappeared. She could just get rid of the problem.

Replies:   Joe Long
Joe Long

@robberhands

I'll just line up some of your sentences and emphazise some words:


and I've grown up since college.

Personal responsibility is being given the freedom to make choices and reap the rewards of the good decisions, but also suffer the consequences of porn ones. Those are powerful incentives to teach us good from bad, by experience (ours own or others.)

Risk is also powerful. It forces us to think before we act in order to avoid consequences.

When risk and consequences are removed, it also removes incentives for people to decide wisely. There's less downside to behaving recklessly.

My example was to illustrate that the availability of abortion took away my fear, as a teenager, of getting a girl pregnant, because the chance of suffering consequences was much lower, to the point of not being considered.

robberhands

@Joe Long

I believe it took away your fear; mostly because you don't get pregnant and you don't have to do an abortion.
Talking about responsibilities is much easier when you aren't taking any.

Replies:   Joe Long
Dominions Son

@Joe Long

but also suffer the consequences of porn ones


Interesting wrong word/typo. :)

Replies:   Joe Long
Joe Long

@robberhands

Talking about responsibilities is much easier when you aren't taking any.


If I would've gotten a girl pregnant with the expectation that she would carry it to term, I would have been financially responsible for at least 18 years and would've likely been pressured to marry her, if we were close enough or old enough.

That's not same as being pregnant for 9 months and giving birth, but it is a life altering event.

Have we gotten so used to men just walking away? How did we get to that point? They are just as responsible.

Joe Long

@Dominions Son

Interesting wrong word/typo. :)


Damn, you can tell where my brain was. Sometimes I have a word in my brain but my fingers do their own thing.

docholladay

@Jim S

Wups. My mistake.


I admit I have tried to avoid giving her actual decision, but I felt it was needed. After that film and reading all the facts in the literature the clinic gave her. She decided to put the baby up for adoption instead of having an abortion. It was an educated decision although a hard one to make. The effects of the shunning had not been mentioned in those facts since it was an unknown factor. Who knows if that clinic is still in business and following the same policies it might have been added. As I pointed out many times however I just wanted all of the known facts without bias to be given to the girl/woman. After that it was up to her to make the best decision possible for her situation.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@docholladay

She made the right decision for her and that's the main thing.

Hopefully the small-minded bigots who perpetrate shunnings are being eradicated by better education.

AJ

Jim S

@robberhands

You can blame a pair having sex without protection of negligence but you can't pretend they intended to kill anyone.

It doesn't matter that the abortion isn't in the front of the mind when their clothes come off. You don't seem to want to accept the fact that both individuals are responsible for the life their action created. Regardless of the fact that it wasn't uppermost in their minds while in the grip of passion.

Separating the murder of the infant from the act of creating it doesn't fly either. It is the same as a person committing manslaughter with a vehicle. Surely he/she didn't intend killing anyone upon getting behind the wheel of his/her car. Yet the death that shouldn't have occurred, did. Same thing with abortion only abortion is premeditated while manslaughter is accidental. But the principle is the same.

REP

Hopefully the small-minded bigots who perpetrate shunnings are being eradicated by better education.


Nice thought AJ, but unfortunately that doesn't happen.

Most of those small-minded bigots base their opinions and actions (i.e., shunnings) on the religious principles they were taught by their churches. They believe their religious principles are correct for the church not only told them what to think, but the church also told them GOD supports those religious principles.

In our history, churches and church leaders are responsible for more death and harm to people than any other factor. The entire Pro Life versus Pro Choice issue is really about the religious beliefs that churches have taught their followers.

Replies:   Joe Long
robberhands

@Jim S

Every analogy you construct is an attempt to criminalize a behavior which is not prohibited by law. You can continue to claim your moral superiority but that's all it is, and hopefully, all it ever will be.

Replies:   Joe Long
Joe Long

@REP

The entire Pro Life versus Pro Choice issue is really about the religious beliefs that churches have taught their followers.


None of us have cited religion in this thread. I've focused on how abortion laws in America are at odds with other laws in how they are reasoned.

Replies:   REP
Joe Long

@robberhands

Every analogy you construct is an attempt to criminalize a behavior which is not prohibited by law.


Behaviors that many, perhaps a majority, do consider criminal and that many legislatures have banned or restricted, to be overridden by the legal judgments of five people.

Not everything that is illegal is wrong. Not everything that is wrong is illegal. This is a subject still open to debate, despite whatever it's current legal status.

robberhands

@Joe Long

Behaviors that many, perhaps a majority, do consider criminal...

'Perhaps majorities' are meaningless. Every law is a restriction of freedom; anything not forbidden by law is allowed. You live in a democracy, if a majority wants to criminalize a behavior than a law has to be passed.

Replies:   Joe Long
Joe Long

@robberhands

You live in a democracy, if a majority wants to criminalize a behavior than a law has to be passed.


Correct - but if a significant portion of the population believes the law is wrong then there will be considerable political debate, as there is.

However, as I mentioned, many times laws have been passed by democratic majorities only to be struck down by the court. That's why we also analyze how courts came to their decisions. Did they follow their own personal policy preferences, or did they act as a neutral arbiter of the law?

robberhands

@Joe Long

However, as I mentioned, many times laws have been passed by democratic majorities only to be struck down by the court. That's why we also analyze how courts came to their decisions. Did they follow their own personal policy preferences, or did they act as a neutral arbiter of the law?

Every democracy is based on the separation of powers. You may dislike its rulings but your Supreme Court is a part of your democracy and it is doing its job.

Replies:   Joe Long  Jim S
Joe Long

@robberhands

You may dislike its rulings but your Supreme Court is a part of your democracy and it is doing its job.


AS I stated, I will judge their rulings not on the outcome but on the legal underpinnings.

Jim S

@robberhands

Every democracy is based on the separation of powers. You may dislike its rulings but your Supreme Court is a part of your democracy and it is doing its job.

Just keep in mind that the list of overturned SCOTUS decisions is a long one. The list of abrogated decisions, while short, is still significant. Abrogated decisions are those overturned by Amendments, e.g. Dredd Scott by the 13th and 14th Amendments. One can say that abrogated decisions reflect that people slapping SCOTUS on the wrist for screwing up.

Geek of Ages

@Jim S

abortion is premeditated while manslaughter is accidental


You... are aware that miscarriages exist, right?

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@Geek of Ages

You... are aware that miscarriages exist, right?

Yes, as well as it's ratio to live births. And abortions.

Replies:   Geek of Ages
Geek of Ages

@Jim S

(Miscarriages are abortions)

Replies:   Jim S  Joe Long
awnlee jawking

@Joe Long

Behaviors that many, perhaps a majority, do consider criminal


That's certainly not true in most of the UK. The Royal College of Midwives has just voted for further liberalisation of the law, something I've been arguing against because of the need to guard against gender abortion, a real problem in families originating from the Indian subcontinent.

It wasn't true in the old Soviet Union, where abortion was considered a legitimate method of contraception due to the lack of access to condoms. (Visiting the Soviet Union? Take denim jeans and condoms to sell on the black market.) Allegedly some women racked up cricket scores of abortions.

The countries where abortion is most denigrated tend to be those with the strongest belief in flying spaghetti monsters, not the best indication of a rational choice :(

AJ

robberhands

@awnlee jawking

The countries where abortion is most denigrated tend to be those with the strongest belief in flying spaghetti monsters, not the best indication of a rational choice :(

Pastafarianism is legally recognized as a religion in the Netherlands and New Zealand, you heretic!

Jim S

@Geek of Ages

(Miscarriages are abortions)

It's hard having a discussion when disingenuity enters into it. Time to stop for me.

Replies:   Geek of Ages
Ernest Bywater

@Joe Long

However, as I mentioned, many times laws have been passed by democratic majorities only to be struck down by the court.


Name one law where it was voted on by every member of the society who could vote and it was clear they were all fully informed on all aspects of the law. You'll find that in most cases they voted on how the last lot of publicity people got to them.

Most laws are voted on by a small group such as the US Congress or the Australian Parliament, not the society at large. The US Congress passed the Prohibition Act, yet the society at large ignored it because they didn't agree. Eventually Congress recognised that and repealed it.

You'd be surprised how many laws are passed because they're based on the biases of the law makers, but the society at large don't agree with them, but end up tolerating them for fear of being abused by the few who support them.

Replies:   richardshagrin  Jim S
Joe Long

@Geek of Ages

(Miscarriages are abortions)


Spontaneous abortions, not elective. It's the intent that distinguishes them.

Replies:   Geek of Ages
Geek of Ages

@Jim S

It's hard having a discussion when disingenuity enters into it.


Indeed. But I think the disingenuity entered when an over-simplified portrayal of the world was presented, not when I pointed out that reality is more complicated than that.

Replies:   madnige
REP

@Joe Long

I've focused on how abortion laws in America are at odds with other laws in how they are reasoned.


The foundation of our 'morality-based' laws is religion. If you are going to focus on such laws then you need to address the religious principles that support them.

The problem that raises for you is that not all of us agree with the religious principles on which many of those laws are based, although we may agree with the law for different reasons.

Geek of Ages

@Joe Long

So, how do you tell the difference?

REP

@Joe Long

Not everything that is illegal is wrong. Not everything that is wrong is illegal.

Right and wrong are ambiguous terms that only have meaning in regard to the context is which they are being used.

In the context of the law, an action that is legal is right/permissible to commit and an action that is illegal is wrong/improper to commit.

Ernest Bywater

@REP

The problem that raises for you is that not all of us agree with the religious principles on which many of those laws are based,


And that's before you get to the many laws where the religious based principle isn't one from the relevant Holy Book but an edict from a past religious leader to help them get a tighter control of the people.

Ernest Bywater

@REP

Right and wrong are ambiguous terms that only have meaning in regard to the context is which they are being used.

In the context of the law, an action that is legal is right/permissible to commit and an action that is illegal is wrong/improper to commit.


I disagree with right / wrong being the same as lawful / unlawful. It's very possible for what you do to be right but against the law. That's why we have trial by a jury of our peers and such things as a legal defence with regards to some laws.

Right or wrong is a definition in relationship to the society and the mores of the society and the individuals, while lawful or unlawful relates directly to the laws in existence in that location. That's why the laws aren't uniform across the a state, let alone a country or the world. In some societies it's right to stone people to death for not wearing enough clothes, and it's legal in some countries too, but it's wrong and unlawful in other countries.

Replies:   REP
Dominions Son

@awnlee jawking

I've been arguing against because of the need to guard against gender abortion, a real problem in families originating from the Indian subcontinent.


And China.

richardshagrin

@Ernest Bywater

Eventually Congress recognised that and repealed it.

It took amendments to the constitution. Not congressional action in the form of a law or its repeal.
"Nationwide Prohibition did not begin in the United States until January 1920, when the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution went into effect. The 18th amendment was ratified in 1919, and was repealed in December, 1933, with the ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment."

richardshagrin

@REP

Right and wrong are ambiguous terms that only have meaning in regard to the context is which they are being used.

In the context of the law, an action that is legal is right/permissible to commit and an action that is illegal is wrong/improper to commit.


Is smoking (tobacco or other substances) legal/right? Sometimes, in some places, in some states it is legal, or sometimes again in other places it is not legal. Is farting wrong or improper? Probably not illegal but should be discouraged. Unless everyone is eating beans. "Beans, Beans, the magical fruit, the more you eat the more you toot, the more you toot the better you feel, so lets have beans with every meal." It seems wrong to me at a gathering like a wedding.

Replies:   docholladay  REP
docholladay

@richardshagrin

Is smoking (tobacco or other substances) legal/right?


Research the taxes on tobacco. I don't mean the sales tax or any of the obvious taxes. Look at the hidden taxes. Over 10 years ago I read where the tax on tobacco generated over a Million per acre. It was supposedly the highest taxed farm commodity in the country. Those were hidden taxes. Question in my mind was what the politicians were doing with all that money.

awnlee jawking

@REP

The problem that raises for you is that not all of us agree with the religious principles on which many of those laws are based,


And don't forget that the all-powerful all-knowing creators seem profoundly ignorant of basic science :(

AJ

Jim S

@Ernest Bywater

Name one law where it was voted on by every member of the society who could vote and it was clear they were all fully informed on all aspects of the law.

Ernest,
Not all laws in the US are passed by legislatures. Some are passed as ballot initiatives where the voters decide. This is done at individual state level and applies only within that state, not the nation in general. In the past, ballot initiatives imposing restrictions on abortions have routinely been vacated by the Federal judiciary. I don't know if that was what Joe Long was referring to, but it is a fact. Please don't ask me to name one though. I couldn't off the top of my head.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@Jim S

Some are passed as ballot initiatives where the voters decide.


I know that sometimes happens, but I've never heard of one where over 51% of the eligible voters had approved of such a law, let along a majority as high as 75% or more. I do remember reading somewhere that back in the 1950s one state legislator put up a bill that voter approval for laws had to by over 50% of the eligible state voters not just over 50% of those who turned out to vote in the election. It died in the house.

His argument was if there were 20,000 eligible voters it needed 10,001 yes votes to pass so if only 12,000 voters turned up at the polls and 8,000 voted for it the bill failed because it didn't have the support of the majority of the eligible voters. In short, a decision not to vote was seen as a vote against it.

Considering the US electoral turn out history damn little would be passed that way.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@Ernest Bywater

Considering the US electoral turn out history damn little would be passed that way.

You're right about that. Low voter turnout is an American phenomena for sure. But it is what it is. Still, in a 60% turnout election where better than half (and often a much higher percentage than half) enact a proposal that is vacated by the judiciary, one can imagine why the controversy surrounding the issue remains alive. The average voter doesn't seem to accept the "emanations from penumbras" that drive judicial reasoning I suppose.

Replies:   Dominions Son  REP
Dominions Son

@Jim S

Low voter turnout is an American phenomena for sure.


And it's not a new phenomena either. Despite the much more restricted franchise, voter turn out in the early 19th century was as low as 10% of eligible voters.

Replies:   richardshagrin
REP

@Ernest Bywater

Right or wrong is a definition in relationship to the society and the mores of the society and the individuals


I agree EB. Right and wrong are terms that normally refer to morality. Joe Long was using the terms in regard to legal issues.

If you are considering just the legal aspects of an issue, the moral right/wrong of the issue must be set aside. In legal terms, it is all about what the law states, the circumstances of the issue, the evidence presented, persuasiveness of the lawyers, and the juror understanding of the case. Those and a few other related factors are what lead to a guilty/not guilty verdict.

In theory, morality has nothing to do with the application of the laws. In reality, many of our laws are based on morality and the decisions made by jurors is often swayed by their moral beliefs.

REP

@richardshagrin

What are we discussing Richard?

An action can be view in terms of its legality, morality, social propriety, or a combination of those and perhaps other viewpoints.

The point I have been trying to make is the legality and morality of an issue are intertwined and cannot be separated. However, it is sometimes necessary to view an issue in terms of just its legality or morality, and when doing so, one should limit their choice of words to those applicable to the legal or moral viewpoint. Mixing words that are specific to a viewpoint invalidates your attempt to separate the two views.

Social propriety is a third viewpoint that was not part of the discussion until you raised it. Proper conduct in a public setting is nothing more than what a person or group of people say is the proper way to behave. A specific action, such as farting, may have absolutely no legal or moral standing in society.

REP

@Jim S

that drive judicial reasoning I suppose


Don't forget that the judicial reasoning of a court has to do with the specific circumstances of a legal case to include the evidence and viewpoints presented by the lawyers. The judges make a decision, good or bad, based on is presented to them and the law.

A different set of lawyers would present the legal case differently and the same set of judges might return a different judgment.

Replies:   Jim S
richardshagrin
Updated:

@Dominions Son


turn out in the early 19th century was as low as 10% of eligible voters.


Part of the US problem is that the polls (where the voting is done) close fairly early and open on Tuesdays during the work week after most people are at work. So if you have to work for a living, at the end of a long day you get to stand in line in order to cast a vote that doesn't make all that much difference in the outcome. Balloting by mail has improved that situation but a lot of people, including me, have figured out their vote has virtually no impact on the result. In Seattle, WA a Democratic party candidate will win, unless a Socialist does. And of course incumbents almost always do. Since the majority of voters are renters, higher property taxes almost always win. Why wouldn't you vote for higher benefits if you didn't pay real estate taxes directly? So I have moved out of the city, and King County, but all of Western Washington is more democratic party oriented than anything else. Thank God for Eastern Washington or we would have state income taxes. The state sales tax is 6.5%. I go to the store and pay 10.1% because of local (city and county) surtaxes.

Jim S

@REP

[snip]The judges make a decision, good or bad, based on is presented to them and the law.

A different set of lawyers would present the legal case differently and the same set of judges might return a different judgment.

I can't agree with the first sentence as it doesn't go far enough; they make their decision based on what's presented and how they interpret the law. Hence, all the "emanations from penumbras" entering the picture.

Here's an example. Common Core educational standards. Liberal judges find Constitutional support in their "emanations from penumbras" from whatever section of the Constitution that has captured their attention at the time. Rational people point to the following:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


That's Amendment X in case you're wondering. Judicial overreach is a very serious threat to the rule of law and retention of the Constitution as it's basis. Otherwise we have the rule of man.

Replies:   Geek of Ages  REP
Geek of Ages

@Jim S

Is jury nullification also a threat to rule of law?

Dominions Son

@Geek of Ages

Is jury nullification also a threat to rule of law?


Jury nullification, while legal in the US system, is exceedingly rare.

Replies:   Geek of Ages  sejintenej
Geek of Ages

@Dominions Son

So is so-called "judicial overreach". My question still stands.

Ernest Bywater

@Geek of Ages

Is jury nullification also a threat to rule of law?


No, it's a recognition there were exceptional circumstances the law didn't consider or the law is in need of a major review. Jury nullification is when the members of the jury decide the law was broken but the person was justified in doing so.

Replies:   docholladay  Joe Long
docholladay

@Ernest Bywater

Jury nullification is when the members of the jury decide the law was broken but the person was justified in doing so.


In other words "Justice" regardless of what the law might say.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@docholladay

In other words "Justice" regardless of what the law might say.


Correct. The two biggest cases I can think of only one ended up in court. in Australia the Gold Miners staged a rebellion at what they called the Eureka Stockade, those who were captured after the army took it went to court and were found not guilty by the jury, despite the evidence being clear. The other never went to court happened in the America in 1776.

REP

@Jim S

they make their decision based on what's presented and how they interpret the law.


Your phrase 'judicial reasoning' refers to an appeal court or the Supreme Court. In those cases it is the duty of the judge(s) to interpret the law and apply it to the case presented to them to reach a decision.

People often disagree with the decisions of a court. Usually they are aware of what a case is about, but they aren't aware of the evidence and arguments presented by the attorneys. If one of the attorneys presents insufficient evidence or a poor argument, the judge(s) are required to only consider the evidence and arguments presented to them in terms of their understanding of the law. Thus, we often get judges issuing decisions that seem wrong in terms of what a case was actually about.

Joe Long

@Ernest Bywater

Jury nullification is when the members of the jury decide the law was broken but the person was justified in doing so.


Or that the penalty was way out of wack with the crime.

robberhands

Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute:

A jury's knowing and deliberate rejection of the evidence or refusal to apply the law either because the jury wants to send a message about some social issue that is larger than the case itself, or because the result dictated by law is contrary to the jury's sense of justice, morality, or fairness.

Jury nullification is a discretionary act, and is not a legally sanctioned function of the jury. It is considered to be inconsistent with the jury's duty to return a verdict based solely on the law and the facts of the case. The jury does not have a right to nulification, and counsel is not permitted to present the concept of jury nullification to the jury. However, jury verdicts of acquittal are unassailable even where the verdict is inconsistent with the weight of the evidence and instruction of the law.

Joe Long

@robberhands

The jury does not have a right to nulification, and counsel is not permitted to present the concept of jury nullification to the jury.


People have been arrested for handing out tracts near courthouses explaining the theory of jury nullification without referencing specific cases, but have been thrown out for free speech violations.

Replies:   robberhands
robberhands

@Joe Long

I quoted and didn't comment on it. Everyone on the forum denied to be a judge or lawyer. I noticed some of the definitions provided in this discussion were rather unclear, or even dubious, and thought it could be helpful to look at the definition of a legal term at something offered by a law educational source.

Replies:   Joe Long
Ernest Bywater

@robberhands

Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute:


I find the second paragraph of the quote extremely interesting because the jury system was instituted to allow the local people to say whether the accused was guilty of doing something the community didn't like or the community agreed with what they did.

In English Law, and in most Commonwealth countries, the Magistrate may rule only on the word of the law while a jury has the right to rule if the law should be voided in this specific case because a person may have broken the wording of the law but had justification to do so which isn't covered in the law itself. This is the reasoning behind the whole jury system, and why it came into being. Yet, it seems the US legal system now nullifies that reasoning.

Replies:   robberhands
robberhands

@Ernest Bywater

...a jury has the right to rule if the law should be voided in this specific case...

This sentence places the legislative AND the jurisdictional power in a jury's hands. You may find it reasonable but I see twelf people replacing the law by their personal view on justice based on their personal morals, beliefs and agendas.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@robberhands

This sentence places the legislative AND the jurisdictional power in a jury's hands. You may find it reasonable but I see twelf people replacing the law by their personal view on justice based on their personal morals, beliefs and agendas.


I never said the jury should on their personal morals and beliefs. I said the jury system was created for and set up to allow the members of the local society have a say about the case where a person may have broken the letter of the law in a situation where they feel the person was justified in doing so. The classic example of that, here in Australia, was when a group of people gathered in defiance of the Riot Act and stood under arms against the police and the Army due to oppressive laws on taxing miners. When they went to trial the jury declared them no guilty of treason and rioting and thus convicted the government of making unfair laws. That's exactly what the jury system is there for, to provide a balance for the local people against the powerful people in power. To remove that balance basically says the jury is a waste of time.

Replies:   robberhands
robberhands
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater

I'm from Germany and we don't have juries. However, we have lay judges and their rulings have the same weight as those of the official judge or judges. At the lowest level court two lay judges can be called to reside beside a single judge and overrule the judge. At every higher level court the number of lay judges is two and the number of official judges at least three. The lay judges are not tasked to review the law, they provide an layman's view of the law, but both, the official judges as well as the laymen, have to abide the law.

Eta: What you just wrote:

I said the jury system was created for and set up to allow the members of the local society have a say about the case where a person may have broken the letter of the law in a situation where they feel the person was justified in doing so.

It sounds nicer, but if the jury doesn't use the law to judge, whatelse do they use? Their own personel view on justice based on their personal morals, beliefs and agendas.

Replies:   Joe Long
Joe Long

@robberhands

I quoted and didn't comment on it.


I understood that, and just added further comment on the comment you quoted.

Juries aren't supposed to nullify, but there's nothing the courts can do after the fact. They have tried to prevent people from educating jurors on the concept.

Replies:   robberhands
Joe Long

@robberhands

It sounds nicer, but if the jury doesn't use the law to judge, whatelse do they use? Their own personel view on justice based on their personal morals, beliefs and agendas.


Juries may well do that. Their word is final and the verdict can only be appealed by alleging errors by the prosecution, defense or judge.

In the US, may states have a magistrate system where small claims and traffic violations are heard by an elected lay judge. Many have law degrees but its not required.

The jury system was created so that the citizens would be judged by their peers, not by the government - which is restricted to have one branch present evidence while another branch referees the process. Convincing twelve diverse people beyond a reasonable doubt is difficult, to lessen the chance of convicting an innocent person.

I have issues with "administrative law judges" who rule on violations of government regulations, as there are no separation of powers. There is no jury, and the investigators, prosecutor and judge all work for the same government agency. They are convincing themselves of your guilt, with no outside opinions, especially of regular citizens, entering the process.

Replies:   robberhands  REP
robberhands

@Joe Long

They have tried to prevent people from educating jurors on the concept.

Of course, they tried. A jury nullification is a circumvention of the legal procedure to revoke a law. You may not find the majority you need to revoke a law but you always can try to convince twelf people to nullify it.

robberhands
Updated:

@Joe Long

I have issues with "administrative law judges" who rule on violations of government regulations, as there are no separation of powers.

To grant the judicial independence, in Germany judges are neither elected nor can they be fired (unless convicted of a crime). So in that sense we don't have "administrative law judges" and, to their great chagrin, government agencies lose most of their cases before court.

Replies:   Joe Long
sejintenej
Updated:

@Dominions Son


Jury nullification, while legal in the US system, is exceedingly rare.


Almost the same concept but a very different situation which occurred in the Court of Appeal (which is as high as you can get)in England in the late 1800's

In judgement Lord Justice Scrutton, explaining his decision, wrote that although the prosecution had proven their case that the defendant was guilty considered the entire case was so unreasonable and against common sense that he fined the defendant one penny (the smallest coin) which he personally paid and ordered that the prosecution pay all expenses of both parties in all cases leading up to and including the appeal.

His opening comment was "The Law is not an Ass" (British for stupid)

Joe Long

@robberhands

So in that sense we don't have "administrative law judges"


Wasn't claiming that they existed in Germany. Just pointing out that they do exist in the US and in my opinion are a perversion of the judicial process, as it's totally within the executive branch.

Dominions Son
Updated:

@robberhands

Edidted (hit post too soon)


The jury does not have a right to nulification, and counsel is not permitted to present the concept of jury nullification to the jury. However, jury verdicts of acquittal are unassailable even where the verdict is inconsistent with the weight of the evidence and instruction of the law.


The two highlighted sentences can be easily seen as contradictory. If it's not reversible, then yes, in a very strong sense, the jury does have the right to do it.

Whether or not the defendant should have the right to argue for nullification is a separate matter.

Replies:   robberhands
REP

@Joe Long

The purpose of an Administrative Law Judges is to address Administrative issues within a governmental agency; they do not address criminal or civil cases. Violations of government regulations by regular people who are not part of the agency would most likely be a criminal case.

The people involved can present evidence and legal opinions relating to the issues. The ALJs can obtain outside opinions from knowledgeable sources; they would not go to a regular citizen to gather uninformed opinions.

Replies:   Joe Long
robberhands

@Dominions Son

The two highlighted sentences can be easily seen as contradictory. If it's not reversible, then yes, in a very strong sense, the jury does have the right to do it.

Only when the jury verdict is an acquittal, and that has more to do with predictability of legal decisions and the protection of the defendant than a supposed right of the jury.

Replies:   Dominions Son
madnige

@Geek of Ages

Hear Hear! Two thumbs up!

Dominions Son
Updated:

@robberhands

Only when the jury verdict is an acquittal


Jury nullification is by definition always an acquittal.


and that has more to do with predictability of legal decisions and the protection of the defendant than a supposed right of the jury.


It still gives the jury the right to nullify in effect if not in name.

Replies:   robberhands  REP
robberhands

@Dominions Son

It still gives the jury the right to nullify in effect if not in name.

In case of an acquittal, and I won't say using an opportunity is the same as a right.

Joe Long

@REP

The purpose of an Administrative Law Judges is to address Administrative issues within a governmental agency; they do not address criminal or civil cases.


They can be things such as Civil Rights Commissions which can and do levy fines against citizens or businesses who violate the regulations.

Of course there's evidence and opinions presented, but the judge is working for the same agency as the investigator and prosecutor, which does not make him an independent arbiter.

Replies:   REP
richardshagrin

There is more ways than Jury nullification for the intent of laws to be over-ruled. It appears that a fair number of police are absolved of responsibility for things like killing citizens by the operation of district attorneys and other administrative procedures that determine police are not guilty even when clearly they are.

REP

@Dominions Son

Jury nullification is by definition always an acquittal


Out of curiosity, if a defendant is charge with multiple counts ranging from minor to severe and the evidence proves the defendant is guilty on all counts, is it jury nullification if the jury returns a verdict of Not Guilty on all but the least severe charge (i.e. not acquitted on all counts).

Replies:   Dominions Son
REP

@Joe Long

They can be things such as Civil Rights Commissions


Civil Rights Commissions are different than administrative law judges. Different credentials and different purposes.

Replies:   Joe Long
Joe Long

@REP

Civil Rights Commissions are different than administrative law judges. Different credentials and different purposes.


This is one of the new stories where I remembered seeing them in combination.

The complaint was made to the Civil Rights Commission and an ALJ issued a verdict which later made it's way to an appellate court, the first time outside of the executive branch.

I'm not offering an opinion on this case, just that I believe that judges and prosecutors should come from different branches of government, as it was originally designed.

Replies:   REP
Dominions Son

@REP

Actually, it depends. There are two ways you can get multiple charges.

Multiple independent charges for independent offenses: In this case, technically, yes each count found not guilty would be a separate nullification.

The other route to multiple charges, is what is called lesser included charges.

Let's take murder as an example. Fred kills Bob. The prosecutor thinks it was premeditated, but isn't sure he can prove premeditation.

The prosecutor has a couple of options, he can charge just the most serious offense he thinks he can prove (murder 1 in our example) or he can charge murder 1 and the lesser included charge of murder 2.

If the prosecutor takes option one and just charges murder 1 but the jury doesn't think the prosecutor proved premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury is forced to acquit and Fred walks even though there is no doubt that Fred killed Bob. This is not nullification, the crime charged was not proved.

If the prosecutor decides to charge murder 1 with lesser included charges*, technically, it is not legally possible for the defendant to be guilty on all charges. Since all the charges cover the same act(s) at different levels of culpability the jury can only find the defendant guilty on one count depending on what they feel the evidence proves.

*The prosecutor must make the explicit decision to include lesser charges and decide which lesser charges to include. In our example, the prosecutor could charge just murder 1 and 2 or he can throw in everything, all the way down to negligent homicide.

Replies:   REP
REP

@Joe Long

This is one of the new stories where I remembered seeing them in combination.


In the article you referenced, the only mention of an administrative law judge was:

"For all Phillips knew at the time," an administrative-law judge ruled, in 2013—in a decision later adopted by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and upheld by the state appeals court—Craig and Mullins "may have wanted a nondescript cake suitable for consumption at any wedding." The commission has conceded that Phillips could have lawfully declined to write messages that he disagreed with on the cake, and it has previously allowed bakers to refuse to adorn cakes with white-supremacist and anti-Muslim messages.

The way I read the above, there had been a court case involving Craig and Mullins. It sounds like the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had an administrative law judge evaluate their policies in light of the court ruling and in 2013 the administrative law judge provided his ruling on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's policies. It does not sound as if the administrative law judge presided over the court case.

REP

@Dominions Son

Multiple independent charges for independent offenses: In this case, technically, yes each count found not guilty would be a separate nullification.


The way I see it, the term acquitted is normally used to mean 'Not Guilty' of all charges. Therefore a defendant is not acquitted of the charges if they are found guilty on any charge.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@REP

The way I see it, the term acquitted is normally used to mean 'Not Guilty' of all charges. Therefore a defendant is not acquitted of the charges if they are found guilty on any charge.


Yes, the media frequently use it that way, but then that's not the only legal term that the media misuses more often then they get it right.

docholladay

It is very nice to see such a wide ranging debate of ideas with only a minimum of cutting each others ideas.

Makes for a fun topic just to watch let alone to participate in.

Another little question how many know what will happen if you mix a table tennis ball filled with battery acid with a tank of gas.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@docholladay

Another little question how many know what will happen if you mix a table tennis ball filled with battery acid with a tank of gas.


A guess, and it's just a guess, BOOM!

Replies:   docholladay
docholladay

@Dominions Son

With no forensics evidence left behind. Method supposedly used in a car's gas tank by dropping the filled ping pong ball into a car's gas tank. Major problem is there is no way I know of to predict how long it will take the ball to dissolve enough to allow the acid to mix with the gas creating the reaction. So the timing is a matter of luck maybe.

Replies:   Dominions Son  Zom
Dominions Son

@docholladay

You are scary. Remind me not to meet you in a dark alley.

Replies:   docholladay
docholladay

@Dominions Son

No one here has anything to fear from me in that respect. Now that damned pedo cop if I can ever locate him is another story. I will have no mercy for him at all. But the odds are against me ever finding him after all these years.

Zom

@docholladay

dropping the filled ping pong ball into a car's gas tank

Another tall tale! The celluloid material comprising a ping pong ball would be dissolved by sulphuric acid in seconds. And even if it wasn't, how would it get past the anti-syphon device?

docholladay
Updated:

@Zom

That method was described to me before unleaded gas was a standard. He made his living by arranging accidents among other things. One of his favorite methods was to enter the person's home while they were sleeping and placing a cartridge or shell on the pillow beside their head before the final accident.

edited to add: as stated the timing was too unpredictable. But since that was his profession, he studied many methods of completing contracts. The unpredictability made that method unusable by him. His methods almost required being able to set his watch by the individual's schedule among other things. Timing and predictability were key factors in his Method of operation. It is surprising how many things a person can learn over the years if they just keep their eyes and ears open.

Dominions Son

@Zom

The celluloid material comprising a ping pong ball would be dissolved by sulphuric acid in seconds.


At what concentration? Are you referring to pure sulfuric acid, because battery acid is actually a fairly weak solution of sulfuric acid?

Replies:   docholladay  Zom
docholladay

@Dominions Son

Like I said the timing is too unpredictable. That doesn't mean the knowledge isn't available as to how to do it. But knowledge also doesn't satisfy the MO factors.

I know what major factors would enter into effect for me:

1: each incident would be just one individual with no other person being harmed.
2: Head games as some people call it would definitely be used.
3: if violence was to be involved by me. Most likely all the evidence including witnesses would indicate my actions were the act of self-defense.
4: like with the person that cops warned me about him being hurt. I set it up in such a way that there was no chance of a conviction based on the evidence and alibi witnesses (same cops who warned me).
5: I freely admit I love getting even. But I refuse to hang myself in the process. Otherwise almost any weapon or method is possible with the exceptions of anything which could injure multiple people in the act of revenge or payback.

There are other factors in my MO, but they are the main ones.

Zom

@Dominions Son

At what concentration?

I am guessing the concentration would need to be fairly high to get the intended result in the gas. Car battery acid is typically 30-50% sulfuric acid with a concentration of 4.2–5 mol/L, and should be quite enough to rapidly soften the cellulose in a ping pong ball.

Back to Top