Forum: Story Ideas

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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.

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.

Coptic Christians have been massacred in Egypt.

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

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).

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.

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.

Boobs are overrated.

Heretic!

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

Is jury nullification also a threat to rule of law?

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

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)

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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

(Miscarriages are abortions)

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

Hear Hear! Two thumbs up!

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.

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.

but also suffer the consequences of porn ones

Interesting wrong word/typo. :)

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?

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.

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.

I torture my characters

Full BDSM or just S&M?

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.

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.

...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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.