• 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 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I'd just keep walking. If a dude blowing a dildo is the worst problem this country has, we're doing pretty good.
 
So how does him sucking on that dildo actually effect anything? He's a shithead, but do we really want to start throwing people in jail for being jerks.
 
moshquerade said:
How about not locking him up but requiring counseling/probation (like they did)? His behavior is not normal, no matter how much anyone here wants to dismiss it.
Click to expand...

He should still have to break a law to get punished. You can't just say in hindsight that a law should have been worded differently and he should therefore be punished. Having bending the laws to fit your needs be acceptable is a pretty dangerous precedent to set.
 
AyashiKaibutsu said:
He should still have to break a law to get punished. You can't just say in hindsight that a law should have been worded differently and he should therefore be punished. Having bending the laws to fit your needs be acceptable is a pretty dangerous precedent to set.
Click to expand...

I don't think it would be bending the law to say that this guy was simulating a sexual act.

The way the law was worded was not inadequate, the court's interpretation was obtuse.
 
mugs said:
I don't think it would be bending the law to say that this guy was simulating a sexual act.

The way the law was worded was not inadequate, the court's interpretation was obtuse.
Click to expand...

golf_trophy.jpg


JAIL! NAO!
 
mugs said:
I don't think it would be bending the law to say that this guy was simulating a sexual act.

The way the law was worded was not inadequate, the court's interpretation was obtuse.
Click to expand...

The law specificly defined what it was... and it wasn't what the guy did. Regardless of how much anyone wishes it was written that way.
 
The court is technically correct. The law as written needs more narrow definitions.
Not saying it didn't Disturb the Peace, which is the more common catch-all charge.
They would have convicted without appeal that was disturbing the peace.
The police overreached with the sexual charge.
I'll bet there's an amendment before their legislature today or tomorrow to close that.
 
tenshodo13 said:
Terrible argument. An appeal to personal feelings is NOT the way the courts should work.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
Laws are there to prevent emotions from ruling an event.
Civil Rights are there to prevent a majority from inflicting undue influence against a particular group.
Constitutions are there to codify and specify these laws and rights for all.
You may not agree with them in a specific instance, but they are there for you in your time of need.

You do not get to pick and choose.
 
mugs said:
The court found Lowe “did not simulate the act of oral sex with the sexual organ of 'another.' The dildo was not near 'another' person’s genitalia … it was apparent he was simulating oral sex with an object. His actions, though clearly rude and offensive, do not violate the express terms of the statute.”

Do they not know what simulate means?
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. By their definition he'd actually have to be sucking a dick to "simulate" sucking a dick. Morons.
 
AyashiKaibutsu said:
The law specificly defined what it was... and it wasn't what the guy did. Regardless of how much anyone wishes it was written that way.
Click to expand...

The article indicates that the law specifically defines what sexual activity is. The article does not indicate that the law specifically defines what it means to simulate sexual activity. Based on quote at the end, it sounds like the judge was using his own interpretation of what "simulate" means. His interpretation was wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top