The decision says a relative now charged with statutory rape got the girl pregnant, and the girl was removed from her home after her mother reacted violently. The girl doesn't know her father.
That's a horrible, horrifying situation for a young girl (or anyone, for that matter). Anyone with half a brain would let this poor girl have an abortion if her dad is absent and mother literally tried to harm her as a reaction. But...
The girl sought a waiver from the parental consent law, but a district attorney objected.
Fuck that district attorney. Putting the girl through more hell on top of the shit she's already experienced.
I have a major problem with the district attorney who took the time to review this case and decided against it. What the fuck? What. The. Fuck.
Christians. Christians put the DA there. This is the bible belt.
As a former prosecutor I have a problem with the district attorney even being in the decision loop. That's just not a function that should be delegated to that office.
Don't believe anything Comcast has to to say; lying is their business model.
Kind of like how the man yelling fire was creating hysteria about the fire, before it burned down the house.
Comcast: "Who are you going to believe? The most hated company in America or your own lying eyes?"
Comcast also thinks they offer quality service at low prices.
This is an impossible debate because one side will use polls of people who claim they were raped as proof a raped occurred, and the other will use only convictions of rape to show it's not widespread. It's impossible to know how many rapes actually occur on college campuses compared to the general public.
Leaving all matters of alleged sexual assault to be exclusively investigated by local police and prosecutors would go a long way. College disciplinary hearings finding an assault did or did nit happen use a much lower standard of evidence than our courts and are often biased against the accused.
That claim is absurd.
But, I dint get this “It often takes days, week, months or even years for a survivor to realize what happened to them was non-consensual and a criminal act, and the allegations that come from these survivors should not be considered any less legitimate"
You can't decide later it was non consensual.
Yeah, that's what happens when you decide to create an extrajudicial definition of a crime, and then prosecute said crime extrajudicially. The vast majority of States require physical incapacitation before consent is invalidated because of alcohol. However, how many times have we heard the fallacy that being drunk means you cannot consent?
Penal Law Section 130.05(3) states that “A person is deemed incapable of consent when he or she is: (c) mentally incapacitated.” Mentally incapacitated is defined in Section 130.00(6) of the Penal Law as follows: “'Mentally incapacitated’ means that a person is rendered temporary incapable of appraising or controlling his conduct owing to the influence of a narcotic or intoxicating substance administered to him without his consent, or to any other act committed upon him without his consent.”
This is the date-rape drug statute. It’s intended to permit prosecution of those who, as they used to say, slipped someone a mickey (which has an interesting derivation – Mickey Finn – but I digress.) This is a charge that we rarely see.
Anyway, the key to this prosecution is that the complainant cannot have become intoxicated voluntarily. See People v. Johnson, 23 NY3d 973 (2014). So what’s a prosecutor to do when a complainant who was really drunk says she was raped? Well, it seems that some actually charge defendants who have taken advantage of the voluntarily inebriated with an offense alleging physical helplessness. But that’s a different charge.
Penal Law Section 130.05(3) states that “A person is deemed incapable of consent when he or she is: (d) physically helpless. “Physically helpless” is defined in Section 130.00(7) as follows: “’Physically helpless’ means that a person is unconscious or for any other reason is physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an act.”
See that? UNCONSCIOUS OR…PHYSICALLY UNABLE TO COMMUNICATE – not mentally incapable of deciding.
Almost all major states have very similar wording in their statutes, but colleges deem two drunk people hooking up as the man raping the woman.
wont happen. a lot of the rich alumni will revolt. it's already happening at Dartmouth
Joining a fraternity was one of the best choices I've made to be honest. As a transfer student it really helped me make some great friends and make so many connections as well. Probably not a very popular opinion on Reddit, but I stand by my decision and couldn't be happier.
"I do say so my good sir this is a terribly rash and preposterous decision" - Harvard Elites
Should they be able to basketball themselves to the top?
Where is google with their fiber and FB with free internet for all?
Facebook's internet program is actually banned in India because their "free internet for all" bullshit violates net neutrality. They only allowed people to visit certain websites under their program.
Facebook doesn't give a fuck about net neutrality. Fuck Zuckerberg.
More like Mark Fuckerberg, amirite?
It's been a pretty pathetic day of protest so far
This man is dead because the 911 caller gave false information. Every time this case is mentioned this NEEDS to be pointed out.
The shopper was NOT pointing the gun at anyone. The caller told police he was and they rushed in and shot him before he even knew what was going on.
The lies from the 911 caller got that man executed and inadvertently lead to the death of another person who died of shock.
To me, it's a travesty of justice that the caller wasn't charged for this.
The 911 caller basically got away with it.
John Crawford III was shot dead last month by an officer responding to an emergency call made by Ronald Ritchie, a shopper standing 100ft away, who repeatedly stated to the dispatcher that Crawford was pointing the air rifle at customers.
Surveillance footage and audio recordings released after a grand jury declined to indict the officer who shot Crawford showed that Crawford was holding the rifle at his side and pointing it to the floor at the time when Ritchie alleged that “he just pointed it at, like, two children”.
This guy is a lying piece of shit. He even lied about being ex-military while he was doing interviews.
Ritchie also told several reporters after the shooting that he was an “ex-marine”. The Guardian disclosed last month that he was thrown out after seven weeks in 2008, after being declared a “fraudulent enlistment”.
EDIT: Anyone who says he removed the BB gun from the package is either intentionally lying or they are blindly speading lies they've heard to try to shift blame to this shopper.
He did not remove the BB gun from the package because it had no package. The family actually sued the store because it wasn't packaged. It just had security device and tag on it.
A 911 caller reported that a man was pointing a gun at customers, and police charged into the store. Store surveillance video shows that Officer Sean Williams shot Crawford.
Video shows he didn't point it at anyone.
Per the video, it was less than a couple seconds from "hey, put the gun down" to the last shot fired. It occurs in a quiet area of the store where there are no other customers.
Crawford turns towards the initial shout (8:26:55.19), then turns to back away (8:26:56.20) right as the first shot sounds (8:26:56.26). It looks like he may have been dropping the gun at that moment as well, but the resolution's too low for a definitive answer on that.
Ohio is an open carry state.
EDIT: Whoa, that's a lot of responses while I was at work. I'm not going to be able to get to them all, but I'd like to hit a couple of common arguments.
Open carry != brandishing
I unfortunately tend to assume people live in my brain and work off the same assumptions I do. I was primarily referring to the fact that the presence of an open assault rifle isn't necessarily a red flag in Ohio. You can legally have one on your person in WalMart. If this was California, where the mere presence of the firearm was an offense, it would make sense to be on a heightened state of alert in this case.
Additionally, I'm not a lawyer, but I looked up the Ohio brandishing law and came up with: "Except in self-defense, no person shall draw, exhibit or brandish a replica or facsimile of a firearm or simulate a firearm in a rude, angry or threatening manner, with the intent to frighten, vex, harass or annoy or with the intent to commit an act which is a crime under the laws of the city, state or federal government against any other person". I'd urge people to watch the video again. Even though the "weapon" wasn't slung, Crawford was alone in the aisle (no one to brandish the weapon to) and wasn't doing anything that could be considered "rude, angry or threatening" prior to the initial command (when he clearly panicked at the sight of weapons pointed at him and tried to drop the weapon and run in five different directions at once), which leads me to the next common argument:
The cops were just going off the information they were told!
Yes, the caller bears a huge amount of responsibility and has probably earned a place in the special hell. However, that doesn't mean that the police are without culpability here. They arrived at a scene where a dangerous maniac was waving around a gun at children, only to find no one particularly alarmed and the guy with the gun standing calmly in an empty aisle.
I understand adrenaline. I understand "everyone goes home tonight". I understand the "we run at danger while everyone else runs away". However, a big part of survival in these situations is being aware of your surroundings ("Why is everyone else not running away?") and assessing the situation ("This guy isn't acting like the one we were called about; is there another gunman?"). I am terrible at controlling my adrenaline response and not particularly good in chaotic situations like this, which is fine because I'm not a cop. If you are a cop, you should have those skills.
All cops are bad.
No, they're certainly not all bad people and I don't even think this officer is necessarily a bad person. In this situation, he just got tunnel vision and was locked into a specific "this is what we've trained for!" mentality. Given the information that he had, he thought he was going to be the hero of the story and never stopped to notice that the information he was given was obviously incorrect.
Feel like I should also add he didn't enter the store with the gun he picked it up off the damned shelf at the store. EDIT: Word order.
Came here to say this but probably wouldn't have said it as well. The 911 caller made this happen and should be paying for it.
Treating it as a public health issue rather than a criminal one really eats into use and drops the associated crime rate drastically.
Source: Portugal did it and it works.
thank god this is finally happening. drug use is a public health issue, not a criminal issue. this is how it should have been treated from the get go.
in the case of portugal, decriminalization upset the current social environment that led to new addicts. rather than see all their cool siblings and friends use and then develop friend networks of users, the younger generation saw the addicts as pathetic/sad bc they would just go to the drug clinic everyday.
youre right that it is dumb to start using these drugs, but its a social issue that derives from an environment which enables and encourages experimentation and access, and that is why decriminalization works: because it destabilizes existing power and social structures.
To be clear, Oregon isn't actually decriminalizing these drugs. The bill would simply reduce possession charges from a felony to a misdemeanor. It's still a step in the right direction though, misdemeanors aren't life ruining like felonies are
How was this not already a crime?? You can go to jail for spray painting an alley but you can mutilate a vagina and be okay?
It was already a federal crime. All Michigan is doing is making it a state crime as well going forward. I live in Michigan, and it's not like it was cool here before. It's just that our politicians decided to make it a state law to make it easier to prosecute without federal resources. No one defended it before, but it was just never a big enough issue to make a state law before now.
Hate to be a stickler dick but shouldn't this law cover all genital mutilation.
No, because that would make too much sense.
Just to play devil's advocate, let's explore the challenges with this.
1) First we have the privacy issues. You have recordings of private citizens that may or may not have broken the law, that is now a part of the public record. It's possible to go in and blur, but this takes time, a lot of time. Further having someone go in and edit footage casts heavy doubt on the integrity of the footage.
2) Storage and distribution. Face it, video files are large. An entire department of police with body cameras will generate TBs of data each day. Laws like this don't just require that police departments "release" the footage. It requires that they store the footage. It requires that they maintain the personnel and equipment to distribute the footage when requested. Further, it requires a solution to the "how do I deliver footage to you" problem. You think you're going to just walk in and plug a thumb drive onto their network? Nope, viruses and malware.
3) Last, think about how footage like this would complicate criminal trials. I'm not talking about footage of the event in question. I'm talking about the jury watching selectively edited footage from the previous 3 years of the arresting officer to determine a "pattern of erratic behavior/racism/etc" The only counter to which would be for the jury to then watch the footage in its entirety to establish context.
I'm sure there are other issues as well, but these are what came to mind.
*Edit: * Based on the responses I’m getting, it’s very clear that a lot of people in this thread do not understand enterprise IT or the challenges it presents. As someone that worked in IT before moving into the video production field, I’m in a good position to speak on this. I’ll provide a brief analysis.
Let’s look at the data impact of a single police office over the course of a year. This allows us to extrapolate to police departments of different sizes.
Let’s start with the camera. I’m not familiar with the specific camera, but I’m going to assume that it’s recording at 35Mb/s for this analysis. It’s hard to pinpoint for sure, but this is a fairly conservative estimate. By comparison, when I record in the field for commercial work, I’m recording between 220Mb/s and 660Mb/s. It is possible to shoot at lower data rates, but without a 2-pass encoding (not possible to do live) the quality really begins to suffer. I would hope that the body cams are shooting with enough data to recognize what’s going on in the frame, so 35Mb/s.
Next, storing 35Mb/s requires 4.375MB for every second of footage. This means that in 1 minute you need 262.5MB, and in 1 hour you need 15.75GB. Assume an 8 hour shift, and you will find that you need 126GB.
The standard work year is 252 days. Let’s assume that this hypothetical police officer works a standard number of hours for a full time job. That would mean that in one year, he accrues 31.752 TB of footage.
The next step is infrastructure. Either you have to store the footage onsite, or you have to rent a cloud based system and transfer the data to it.
Let’s look at the cloud route first. Assume your department has a 100Mb/s symmetrical data plan (same upload and download) exclusively for transferring the data. Further, let’s assume that you actually get and can use the full theoretical 100Mb/s. Using this, you are able to transfer 45GB per hour, or 1.08TB per day. This means that your connection could only support 8.5 officers.
Once you begin to scale up, the real-world bandwidth limits become prohibitive, so you have to start looking at keeping it in-house. You need to store 31.752TB per year per officer of data. The standard rule-of-thumb is that once backups are taken into account, storing a byte will require 2.5x the size of the byte. So we’ll need to budget 79.38TB of space per officer. Assume that you have a hypothetical department of 100 officers, this means that you 8 Petabytes per year of storage.
But, 8 Petabytes is not something you keep in a spare office. Now you’re talking about renting an office just to store your computers. And you’re talking about servers to run that many drives. And the energy needs to power them. And the UPS’s to protect them. And the thousands of other things that a data center requires, because that’s what you’re doing now, running a data center.
Point is, don’t downplay the technical difficulties with storing this much video footage.
You mean the video that cuts out because of a camera malfunction? Or is it the video that was accidentally erased when the SD card got crushed? I know, it's the video taken by the partner who was talking a lot and kind of looking at the suspect's car the whole time. Sure, coming right up.
The first one alone is more than enough reason to oppose a bill like this. The interactions of police and private citizens aren't some soap opera for random gawkers.
A system needs to be set up in place to ensure that there is properly given access to unedited footage to concerned parties. There doesn't need to be a cost-prohibitive "Feel Good" law for people to get their rocks off at taxpayer expense.
The third one also raises the issue of widespread jury contamination in a digital age. Both in favor of, and to the disadvantage of, the civilian population (as the accused or the accuser).
Yes, that shit will happen so it's not a cure all but it's not a reason not to release the footage...
According to emails he was "loving-it".
"The topic of e-mails keeps coming up on both sides, the question has to be asked: What the heck are e-mails?" - McCain, probably.
Absolutely amazing job by the New York Times here. They had the whole story, they actually had the emails, and they went with it little by little, giving Trump Jr just enough rope to hang himself. Say what you want about mainstream media, this was quality.
WaPo: The president shat himself.
White House: The president would never shit himself.
Trump: I SHAT MYSELF ON PURPOSE
Fox and Friends: I love having shit in my pants! I do it all the time! What's the big deal!
EDIT: Thanks for the gold but I stole this from twitter ¯\_(ツ)_/¯