• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Court Says Law Allows Man's Crude Act

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Perhaps the guy was deaf and dumb and was just trying to solicit a hooker and describe the services he wanted 🙂

J/K, guy is a real perv, and as usual laws designed for normal people don't usually work so well for freaks, but never fear "street law" like natural selection tend to take care of these types eventually.
 
mugs said:
I think you're missing part of the ruling. He did not have to "perform his simulation on someone's else's actual skin flute." That wouldn't have been a simulation of sexual activity, that would have been actual sexual activity.



If he held it up to someone's crotch and pretended to perform oral sex on it, that would be simulated oral sex in the eyes of this court. But because it was not near anyone else's genitalia, it couldn't have been a simulation of oral sex.

So yes it does rest on what the judge thinks constitutes simulation. The judge feels that because another person wasn't present, he couldn't have been simulating oral sex. But the only part of the other person that is necessary for oral sex was present (in er... simulated form).

The thing this judge is missing is that any simulation involves some level of abstraction. Dildos are used to simulate sex, but for practical purposes they leave the rest of the body out.

In college I built a simulation of a restaurant. Guess how much food was involved? None! How could that possibly be? A restaurant is a business which exists to make and serve food. A simulation of a restaurant must include food! Right?

This judge chose to define a simulation much more strictly than it is actually defined.

What I want to know is, why the hell did he lubricate it? 😱
Click to expand...

Do some research and quit inferring what "simulation" is. It's defined in Florida law, this shit just doesn't come out of the air.

(16) "Sexual conduct" means actual or simulated sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse, sexual bestiality, masturbation, or sadomasochistic abuse; actual lewd exhibition of the genitals; actual physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or, if such person is a female, breast with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of either party; or any act or conduct which constitutes sexual battery or simulates that sexual battery is being or will be committed. A mother's breastfeeding of her baby does not under any circumstance constitute "sexual conduct."

(19) "Simulated" means the explicit depiction of conduct described in subsection (16) which creates the appearance of such conduct and which exhibits any uncovered portion of the breasts, genitals, or buttocks.

There's your definition of simulated. Not something the judge had to come up with.
 
I don't understand the "horror" of what this guy did. If I see a weirdo on the street, I keep walking. This wouldn't change whether I was alone, with a child, wife or anybody.

This was a person in his private space (albeit in a public setting) acting like a jackass. If you don't want to see what this guy's doing, you don't have to. Nobody is preventing you from averting your eyes.

The bigger the deal you try to make of it, the more your child or whoever you're with will remember this situation. The easiest way to get them to forget about it is to ignore it and move on. It's the real life version of not feeding the trolls.
 
BrunoPuntzJones said:
Do some research and quit inferring what "simulation" is. It's defined in Florida law, this shit just doesn't come out of the air.

(16) "Sexual conduct" means actual or simulated sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse, sexual bestiality, masturbation, or sadomasochistic abuse; actual lewd exhibition of the genitals; actual physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or, if such person is a female, breast with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of either party; or any act or conduct which constitutes sexual battery or simulates that sexual battery is being or will be committed. A mother's breastfeeding of her baby does not under any circumstance constitute "sexual conduct."

(19) "Simulated" means the explicit depiction of conduct described in subsection (16) which creates the appearance of such conduct and which exhibits any uncovered portion of the breasts, genitals, or buttocks.

There's your definition of simulated. Not something the judge had to come up with.
Click to expand...

Thanks for taking the time to look that up. Like I said, I was just going by what the article said. The reason for the ruling quoted in the article does not match what the law says - the only part of that definition that he did not satisfy was exposed naughty parts.
 
mugs said:
Thanks for taking the time to look that up. Like I said, I was just going by what the article said. The reason for the ruling quoted in the article does not match what the law says - the only part of that definition that he did not satisfy was exposed naughty parts.
Click to expand...

Went back and read that and it came off as kind of prickish, didn't mean it that way.

The law is usually very good about definitions for every little thing, just to prevent cases like this from slipping through.

If a lot is left up to interpretation, so much would get rejected in appeals that things would be more bogged down than they already are.
 
wait until he's got the damn thing in his mouth then rear end the SOB and watch it go through the back of his head.
 
BrunoPuntzJones said:
Irrelevant. Florida law states what simulated is. Doesn't matter what another jurisdiction says.
Click to expand...
I get what you are saying bit it's still relevant. The prosecutor should have quote the state definition and high courts definitions to the judge (wonder if this happened or not).
 
Phoenix86 said:
I get what you are saying bit it's still relevant. The prosecutor should have quote the state definition and high courts definitions to the judge (wonder if this happened or not).
Click to expand...

That's irrelevant. The law can't be changed to retroactively apply to people. This would be similar to getting a speeding ticket, and then the court saying "oops, we meant to write that speeding results in the death penalty, therefore you are sentenced to death."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Phoenix86 said:
I get what you are saying bit it's still relevant. The prosecutor should have quote the state definition and high courts definitions to the judge (wonder if this happened or not).
Click to expand...

Washington DC law has nothing to do with Florida law though. It's not a higher court.

If the guy was in Texas and did the exact same thing, he may have ended up in jail (assuming it's defined as simulated oral). Each state has their own laws and is irrelevant what another state's laws are, unless crossing state lines.
 
mrjminer said:
That's irrelevant. The law can't be changed to retroactively apply to people. This would be similar to getting a speeding ticket, and then the court saying "oops, we meant to write that speeding results in the death penalty, therefore you are sentenced to death."
Click to expand...
The definitions were in place before the crime, not sure what you are talking about here.

Can't log into citrix
BrunoPuntzJones said:
Washington DC law has nothing to do with Florida law though. It's not a higher court.
Click to expand...
Clinton's case was a DC court?
 
Phoenix86 said:
The definitions were in place before the crime
Click to expand...

That's what I meant. It appeared to me as though you were implying the laws elsewhere should be used as a means to argue he should have been guilty (ie: redefining the state law to include his act and deem him guilty as a result).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DayLaPaul said:
I don't understand the "horror" of what this guy did. If I see a weirdo on the street, I keep walking. This wouldn't change whether I was alone, with a child, wife or anybody.

This was a person in his private space (albeit in a public setting) acting like a jackass. If you don't want to see what this guy's doing, you don't have to. Nobody is preventing you from averting your eyes.

The bigger the deal you try to make of it, the more your child or whoever you're with will remember this situation. The easiest way to get them to forget about it is to ignore it and move on. It's the real life version of not feeding the trolls.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly.
 
BrunoPuntzJones said:
lol shit don't call me out
Click to expand...
Well I didn't bring it up, but I'm 99% sure it was a federal court, which makes their ruling relevant. Again I didn't bring it up, not even sure what the ruling on simulated was in that case... Just saying that if definitions were available that the prosecutor should have been standing on the soap box preaching them.
 
moshquerade said:
So... this guy gets off scot-free. What would you do if you saw him doing this? Let him know you saw it and tell him to get the f*Ck out of here, or just go about your business like nothing happened?


http://www.clickorlando.com/news/24169596/detail.html
Click to expand...
Well, I have to admit to having a crude enough sense of humor to find it funny... What I have a problem with is the "encouragement" of women to show their body parts even if they have to use a wire harness to get things up and out, and if necessary stuff in silicone chicken cutlets, saw an old ad for a bra that had straws to "blow" it up as big as needed! And shape em like torpedos for maximum attention getting, but actually have laws on the books currently making it illegal for the impression of a mans genitalia to be visible through their clothing, and a felony to be seen in public in a aroused state of "TURGITY" Hahaha...
 
Okay, i'll bite ...
I went through Times Square this past Sunday to go to the Times Square Church.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/topless-performers-times-square-gallery-1.2331134
I was really surprised at the amount of nudity and weed uptake that has occurred. They do invade the walk through areas too which is not particularly classy. However, the characters, including Trump, were in the designated areas. Being with a large family looking group no one propositioned or begged us.
 
pauldun170 said:
Winter is coming.
The army of the dead (threads) are returning.
Click to expand...

I guess that makes Dereco2000 the Night King.

gotmobileiceking.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top