|
Post by Bezron on Jun 16, 2010 21:03:01 GMT -5
Sometimes, extremely. If those girls hadn't had their fake IDs on them, and if the other girl hadn't felt bad and come clean, I would probably be getting out of jail about now or in a few years. Of course, it didn't hurt that we had a reputation for carding pretty hard at that bar. Although, it may not have helped that I had a reputation for slutting around
|
|
|
Post by kristine on Jul 25, 2010 13:05:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Jul 25, 2010 18:07:57 GMT -5
That's horrible.
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Jul 25, 2010 19:01:24 GMT -5
Mmm - perhaps the whole article should have been quoted:
The appellate court reversed, writing (among other things):
Defendant’s conduct in engaging in nonconsensual sexual intercourse was unquestionably knowing, regardless of his view that his religion permitted him to act as he did.
As the judge recognized, the case thus presents a conflict between the criminal law and religious precepts. In resolving this conflict, the judge determined to except defendant from the operation of the State’s statutes as the result of his religious beliefs. In doing so, the judge was mistaken.
The appellate court remanded for entry of a restraining order. Note that the woman was pregnant with the couple’s child at the time of the initial hearing, so that despite the divorce it seemed likely that the man and the woman would remain in contact; this is legally relevant because restraining orders are designed to prevent future harm, not to punish for past misbehavior. The opinion is quite detailed both in its summary of the factual allegations and as to the legal analysis; those who are especially interested in the case may want to read it closely.
|
|