I'm normally sympathetic to the teenage girls in these kinds of cases, but something about this stuff makes me worry. What exactly is it that men are not supposed to do in these cases? What exactly did this guy do wrong? Following them? Ok, that's pretty damn weird. Stopping ahead of them several times? That's strange.
Leering at them as they walked by? Shit. That's a crime? I check out teenage girls myself if they're hot enough, and teenage girls look at me too. For some reason, Felony Leering Molestation creeps me out a lot more than this guy's behavior.
But this guy's basically acting like a stalker.
Here's another one. This guy pulled over to talk to some teenage girls walking home from school. I wonder what he said?
Then they found porn in his vehicle! Oh no! What a sick fuck! Only sick pedophiles read porn! The porn had "young adults"! Ew! Child molester! We know he's a child molester because of the word "young." Non-pedos only read MILF and old lady porn, that's how we know they are non-pedos.
He also had pregnant porn in his car! Ew gross! Big fat gross pregnant chicks getting laid! What a creep! Only a sick creep would have sex with a pregnant chick. Normal guys won't even look at their wives until after they drop.
They arrested him for felony talking molestation.
Ok, so if talk to an underage girl, am I annoying her? Can I go down on Felony Annoying Molesting, whatever the Hell that is? Do any of you all find this stuff worrying? How does one even know when one is breaking the law anyway? I talk to kids sometimes. What the heck? Am I breaking the law or what?
I'm wondering if it is a crime to "annoy" adult females in this way? At what point are we annoying an adult female anyway? What the Hell? I don't know about these laws. They give me a bad feeling.
Here's a coach. I think what he did was pretty cool. He tied up some teenage girls, then he put tape over their mouths. He didn't have sex with them though, he just temporarily restrained their annoyingness with some binding and gagging objects. Dude! You're awesome. You got a defense fund?
I like this guy too. He's a male witch, a warlock. How evil can you get? And he enslaved teenage girls! How did he do it. Mind control, baby, mind control. He swung a watch in front of them til they turned into kinky teenslut Stepford Teen automatons! He turned them into "sex slaves." Yo! All women should be like this! Specifically, he used "hypnotism and mind-altering techniques to entice two 15-year-old girls into prostitution, sado-masochism and black magic." Yo!
This is too funny:
The self-proclaimed warlock enslaved two troubled 15-year-old girls who came to him for counseling and used black magic and mumbo jumbo to entice them into prostitution and sadomasochism.No problem jailing the dude, but I think the girls should go to jail too - for aggravated felony stupidity. From the article: "He duped them into believing that kinky sexual acts were actually pagan rites." LOL! Hey, are there any adult women this stupid? I want to get into this warlock thing; it sounds promising. Do they offer courses anywhere?
The girls were fed illegal drugs and Fletcher used mind altering techniques and hypnotism to dupe them into believing kinky sexual acts - in which they were tied up and whipped - were pagan rites.
He also advertised one of the girls on the Internet as a submissive teen schoolgirl...bruisable and will take belt and paddle...wears dog collar and nipple clamps."
The sorcerer's evil spell was broken when he was jailed for ten years with a minimum of eight years.
No wait. There's a punch line:
Authorities are also trying to determine if the girls were forced or had consented to take part in the tie-ups.Haha! Actually, they filled out job applications for the position, and there was a long waiting list, but these were the lucky girls who got chosen for the Bondage Model position.
On the other hand, these guys here, here, here, here, here, here and here are engaging in some pretty messed-up behavior.
Good legal case where a state Supreme Court ruled that "annoying" was so vague a crime that one could hardly figure out when one was breaking the law and when one was not:
On the other hand, conflicting Nevada case law suggests that this court will consider whether an enactment is facially void for vagueness, even if no First Amendment interests are implicated, when the challenged statute is so vague that it fails to give persons of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what conduct is permitted or forbidden.The bolded text is hilarious.
For example, in Cunningham v. State, this court upheld a facial vagueness challenge to a statute under the Due Process Clause of the Nevada Constitution as appropriate, where the challenged statute prohibited "the doing of an act in terms so vague that people of common intelligence [were required to] necessarily guess as to its meaning" and where the statute was "so vague that it [did] not provide a constitutional basis for criminal prosecution."
In Coates v. City of Cincinnati , the Supreme Court considered the use of the word "annoy" in an ordinance that made it unlawful for three or more people to assemble on a sidewalk and "conduct themselves in a manner annoying to persons passing by." In holding that the ordinance was "unconstitutionally vague because it subjects the exercise of the right of assembly to an unascertainable standard," the Court reasoned:
Conduct that annoys some people does not annoy others. Thus, the ordinance is vague, not in the sense that it requires a person to conform his conduct to an imprecise but comprehensible normative standard, but rather in the sense that no standard of conduct is specified at all. As a result, "men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning."
We conclude that the standard of conduct proscribed by NRS 207.260, namely, conduct which is "annoying," does not provide fair notice because the citizens of Nevada must guess when conduct that bothers, disturbs, irritates or harasses a minor rises to the level of criminal conduct.
I agree with the majority that the conduct of "annoying a minor" is unconstitutionally vague. That charge is unconstitutional because it "fails to notify individuals what conduct is prohibited, and it encourages arbitrary and capricious enforcement by police." If annoying a minor alone were unlawful, virtually every parent would at one time or another be a lawbreaker.
The case above is a pretty standard reiteration of how many US courts have thrown out statutes on "vagueness" grounds.
I do agree that annoying children (noun phrase) should be illegal, but I'm a bit worried about annoying children (verb phrase) being illegal.
No comments:
Post a Comment