If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Canada.com)   Mother sues jail for putting her precious snowflake near violent people who don't like sex offenders   (calgaryherald.com) divider line 243
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

21609 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Dec 2009 at 1:37 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



243 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2009-12-30 10:46:06 AM  
This is a perfectly valid lawsuit.

When the state incarcerates a person, the state has a duty to provide for their safety and well-being.

The state violated its own regulations enacted to assure prisoner safety, and this man was subsequently beaten to the point of permanent disability.

The state dropped the ball, big-time. Now, they're going to pay.
 
2009-12-30 10:59:00 AM  
SchlingFocker: The state dropped the ball, big-time. Now, they're going to pay.

IANAL, but my father became a Corrections Officer after he retired from NYPD. And what you state is absolutely true of almost every jail--those accused of sex offenses are kept under protective custody and NOT housed w/general population. The stories of inmates hating rapists & child molesters are NOT exaggerated.
 
2009-12-30 11:07:57 AM  
Charges were dropped, subby. So no, he is not a sex offender.
 
2009-12-30 11:08:51 AM  
SchlingFocker: When the state incarcerates a person, the state has a duty to provide for their safety and well-being.

Yep.

It used to be pretty egregious too - back in the civil rights area, sheriffs would arrest black people and then leave them handcuffed in the path of lynch mobs. Led to a Supreme Court case over the state's duty to protect people from third parties.
 
2009-12-30 11:15:41 AM  
I have a friend who worked as a Medic at a famous Federal Prison. He said most of the time they would keep everyone apart, to keep the piece and the level of paperwork down. But if someone got mouthy and under your skin them might "accidentally" put the child molester and the crazy skin head in the shower at the same time.
 
2009-12-30 11:16:22 AM  
One day a mother
Went to a prison
To see an erring
But precious son
She told the warden
How much she loved him
It did not matter
What he had done

She did not bring to him
Parole or pardon
She brought no silver
No pomp nor style
It was a halo
Sent down from heaven
The sweetest gift
A mother's smile
 
2009-12-30 11:34:49 AM  
It seems he is paying the price
For screwing up order with vice.
The beating he's taken
Has sure left him shaken,
But prison's not meant to be nice.
 
2009-12-30 11:50:19 AM  
Let's be clear, this was a jail, not a prison. Huge difference. This guy hadn't been sentenced to anything. Any person here could be accused of a sex offense and run into a judge that denies them bail for any number of reasons.
 
2009-12-30 12:40:04 PM  
downstairs: Charges were dropped, subby. So no, he is not a sex offender.

this


Mother sues jail for putting her precious snowflake son near violent people who don't like alleged sex offenders
 
2009-12-30 12:45:18 PM  
MaxxLarge: It seems he is paying the price
For screwing up order with vice.
The beating he's taken
Has sure left him shaken,
But prison's not meant to be nice.


Do you have a collection of your limmericks somewhere?

/really liked the one when I asked how you come up with them and it ended with something like "[most wonder] not so much how as why"
 
2009-12-30 12:53:22 PM  
Personally, I find it kind of scary that essentially any person at random could be accused of the myriad of offenses we consider "sex crimes", without any proof, and end up in a similar situation.
 
2009-12-30 01:43:30 PM  
Cagey B: Personally, I find it kind of scary that essentially any person at random could be accused of the myriad of offenses we consider "sex crimes", without any proof, and end up in a similar situation.

Not to be snarky but are you new?

/i know your not just surprised that you would be surprised seeing as how there is a similar article at least once a day just on Fark.
 
2009-12-30 01:44:09 PM  
Nicholas Tanner was arrested in August 2008 on a sexual assault allegation and ordered held in custody at the provincial facility while awaiting trial

alleged
 
2009-12-30 01:44:28 PM  
vernonFL: One day a mother
Went to a prison
To see an erring
But precious son
She told the warden
How much she loved him
It did not matter
What he had done

She did not bring to him
Parole or pardon
She brought no silver
No pomp nor style
It was a halo
Sent down from heaven
The sweetest gift
A mother's smile


No! The sweetest gift would be a metal file, or some salsa with a source of DC current.
 
2009-12-30 01:47:25 PM  
Cagey B: Personally, I find it kind of scary that essentially any person at random could be accused of the myriad of offenses we consider "sex crimes", without any proof, and end up in a similar situation.

I wonder how many people are placed in those situations with out any legitimate cause? I would guess that theres a good reason most of the time that someone is suspected.
 
2009-12-30 01:47:55 PM  
Talon: MaxxLarge: It seems he is paying the price
For screwing up order with vice.
The beating he's taken
Has sure left him shaken,
But prison's not meant to be nice.

Do you have a collection of your limmericks somewhere?

/really liked the one when I asked how you come up with them and it ended with something like "[most wonder] not so much how as why"


I've been working on this one for a while, what do you think?

There once was a man from Cleveland
Who never washed his vitz
He said with a grin, as he kicked the neighbors cat
I guess I'll just stick my dick in my ear
 
2009-12-30 01:48:42 PM  
wow i'm a fark independent and i think this is pretty damn bad. accused criminal beaten to the point of permanent brain damage? damn. should be a big payout. this is akin to state murder of a (presumed) innocent person.
 
2009-12-30 01:49:05 PM  
1nsanilicious: Cagey B: Personally, I find it kind of scary that essentially any person at random could be accused of the myriad of offenses we consider "sex crimes", without any proof, and end up in a similar situation.

I wonder how many people are placed in those situations with out any legitimate cause? I would guess that theres a good reason most of the time that someone is suspected.


Direct current current? Do you pay for that with money from an ATM machine?
 
2009-12-30 01:50:02 PM  
Methinks subby needs to re-examine his or her moral values. "Innocent man brain damaged by thugs while in police custody" is what it was.

I hope the mother rips 'em a new one.

Was this some kind of troll headline?
 
2009-12-30 01:50:42 PM  
1nsanilicious: Cagey B: Personally, I find it kind of scary that essentially any person at random could be accused of the myriad of offenses we consider "sex crimes", without any proof, and end up in a similar situation.

I wonder how many people are placed in those situations with out any legitimate cause? I would guess that theres a good reason most of the time that someone is suspected.


Police and prosecutors abusing their powers for any number of reasons? No? Never?
 
2009-12-30 01:50:48 PM  
SchlingFocker: This is a perfectly valid lawsuit.

When the state incarcerates a person, the state has a duty to provide for their safety and well-being.

The state violated its own regulations enacted to assure prisoner safety, and this man was subsequently beaten to the point of permanent disability.

The state dropped the ball, big-time. Now, they're going to pay.


That should be, but if every prisoner who got raped or shivved in prison or jail sued, they could not print enough money to pay them off. Things like that happen so much as to be unremarkable--except that his mother filed suit.
 
2009-12-30 01:51:07 PM  
Trying my best whoopty impression:


He probably raped someone else so he got what he deserved.
 
2009-12-30 01:51:51 PM  
In our system of justice, it is not the government, but only the people, who may punish criminals. Punishments are decided by Juries, not judges or corrections officers or the police. This is a fundamental building block of our civilization.

Wait, this was in Canada? Carry on...
 
2009-12-30 01:52:01 PM  
Sorry tardmitter, there is a slight difference between being near people and getting beaten to the point of permanent brain damage. Clearly the prison was negligent.
 
2009-12-30 01:52:07 PM  
He was accused, not convicted. Had he been a convict, his sentence would have been incarceration, not a beating. The state should pay.
 
2009-12-30 01:52:29 PM  
Ok, was this dude taking a whiz in public or diddling little boys/girls? Either way, he doesn't deserve permanent vegetative status. For the whiz, maybe a good biatchslap would suffice. For the diddling, probably closer to what he got, but only after conviction. I want to know that he wasn't first the victim of somebody making accusations to get back at him for dumping her.
 
2009-12-30 01:52:53 PM  
Hmm. No details on the "victim's" offence other than it was sexually related.

Too bad the job wasn't finished.
 
2009-12-30 01:53:58 PM  
Cagey B: Personally, I find it kind of scary that essentially any person at random could be accused of the myriad of offenses we consider "sex crimes" any crimes, without any proof, and end up in a similar situation.

There are people who have been convicted who are not guilty of any number of crimes, so why single out sex crimes? Oh right, because this is fark, and everybody accused of a sex crime was just a 16 year old boning his 15 year old girlfriend, or taking a pee behind a building.
 
2009-12-30 01:54:41 PM  
Well, she's right.
 
2009-12-30 01:55:41 PM  
Came in here to snark, but I'm afraid the jail dropped the ball on this one. This guy not only had his life ruined, he's never even going to be aware of it.
 
2009-12-30 01:55:45 PM  
ciocia: Cagey B: Personally, I find it kind of scary that essentially any person at random could be accused of the myriad of offenses we consider "sex crimes" any crimes, without any proof, and end up in a similar situation.

There are people who have been convicted who are not guilty of any number of crimes, so why single out sex crimes? Oh right, because this is fark, and everybody accused of a sex crime was just a 16 year old boning his 15 year old girlfriend, or taking a pee behind a building.


Don't forget the girl that was drunk and changed her mind the next morning.
 
2009-12-30 01:56:57 PM  
SchlingFocker: This is a perfectly valid lawsuit.

When the state incarcerates a person, the state has a duty to provide for their safety and well-being.

The state violated its own regulations enacted to assure prisoner safety, and this man was subsequently beaten to the point of permanent disability.

The state dropped the ball, big-time. Now, they're going to pay.


i am not great at geography and things such as, but this was not in a state, but in canada

\aren't they called Providences?
 
2009-12-30 01:56:59 PM  
tweekster: ciocia: Cagey B: Personally, I find it kind of scary that essentially any person at random could be accused of the myriad of offenses we consider "sex crimes" any crimes, without any proof, and end up in a similar situation.

There are people who have been convicted who are not guilty of any number of crimes, so why single out sex crimes? Oh right, because this is fark, and everybody accused of a sex crime was just a 16 year old boning his 15 year old girlfriend, or taking a pee behind a building.

Don't forget the girl that was drunk and changed her mind the next morning.


Or the making coffee naked infront of the window
 
2009-12-30 01:57:28 PM  
I have to agree with the mother on this one. The State failed to perform its custodial function with due care.
 
2009-12-30 01:57:35 PM  
The accusations against the guy have nothing to do with the validity of the lawsuit. His guilt or innocence don't, either. I hope she wins.
 
2009-12-30 01:57:38 PM  
img519.imageshack.us
 
2009-12-30 01:58:03 PM  
hitlersbrain: Was this some kind of troll headline?

Lets see....
site is run on banner ads
banner ads are click through and impression based

so errr yea (good business model overall, FOX and Murdoch love it, as do MSNBC and .... well everyone likes it)

// subby should rot for the precious snowflake comment anyway
/ childless ? dont have a snowflake ? sucks to be you (cuz they freaking ROCK, after the first coffee)
 
2009-12-30 01:59:17 PM  
1nsanilicious: Cagey B: Personally, I find it kind of scary that essentially any person at random could be accused of the myriad of offenses we consider "sex crimes", without any proof, and end up in a similar situation.

I wonder how many people are placed in those situations with out any legitimate cause? I would guess that theres a good reason most of the time that someone is suspected.


In some cases, yes. The whole "you are known by the company you keep" thing can come and bite you in the ass. Receiving stolen property and drug possession charges would land in this category.

OTOH, with some crimes, sexual especially, all it takes is for someone with a screw loose (or a grudge, or bad information) to point the finger at you... and you might just end up where this guy did.
 
2009-12-30 01:59:30 PM  
Look to the bigger picture here.

He wasn't a sex offender, he was presumed to be innocent but going to court, just in-case he might have been guilty.

So since he wasn't a sex offender, because he was presumably innocent they treated him no differently than the 'proven guilty' guilty folks around him.

Since the charges have been dropped, they actually had an innocent man in jail, beaten nearly to death by inmates.

"Dropping the ball here" isn't the half of it.

You can't say he was guilty, but at the same time, he was certainly exposed to the judgement of his peers.

We really need to either figure-out a different system here, or propenly embrace the concepts we've started with and try to make them work.
 
2009-12-30 02:00:47 PM  
Kate Gosselin's Pap Smear: i am not great at geography and things such as, but this was not in a state, but in canada

You're also not great at vocabulary. The term "state" refers to "a body politic." A provincial (or even local) government can legitimately and properly be referred to as "the state."
 
2009-12-30 02:00:56 PM  
Cagey B: Personally, I find it kind of scary that essentially any person at random could be accused of the myriad of offenses we consider "sex crimes", without any proof, and end up in a similar situation.

I'll bet you do.

Guy got what was coming to him.
 
2009-12-30 02:01:51 PM  
On a completely different sidenote, -17C in Manitoba!!?? That is some serious cold.
 
2009-12-30 02:02:04 PM  
Not An Alt: Cagey B: Personally, I find it kind of scary that essentially any person at random could be accused of the myriad of offenses we consider "sex crimes", without any proof, and end up in a similar situation.

I'll bet you do.

Guy got what was coming to him.


0/10. It's already been used in this thread. Must try harder.
 
2009-12-30 02:02:10 PM  
1nsanilicious: tweekster: ciocia: Cagey B: Personally, I find it kind of scary that essentially any person at random could be accused of the myriad of offenses we consider "sex crimes" any crimes, without any proof, and end up in a similar situation.

There are people who have been convicted who are not guilty of any number of crimes, so why single out sex crimes? Oh right, because this is fark, and everybody accused of a sex crime was just a 16 year old boning his 15 year old girlfriend, or taking a pee behind a building.

Don't forget the girl that was drunk and changed her mind the next morning.

Or the making coffee naked infront of the window


what happened to that dude?
 
2009-12-30 02:02:25 PM  
Said it before, say it again: if we're going to embrace beatings and rapings in prison as part of the punishment, it certainly shouldn't be handed out in a vigilante manner by other prisoners. Little teenaged boy who banged a 15-year-old girl should not end up the prison-biatch of a huge biker who killed 5 people.

If you want violent punishment, have the balls to legislate it. Sentence a man to 10 years and bi-weekly sessions with the prison Steely Dan, and crack down on the violence.
 
2009-12-30 02:02:33 PM  
cryinoutloud: Came in here to snark, but I'm afraid the jail dropped the ball on this one. This guy not only had his life ruined, he's never even going to be aware of it.

OH give me a break, the accuser probably dropped the charges after the story got out about him getting beat. No need to send him to prison now, he just got some REAL justice.
 
2009-12-30 02:03:52 PM  
Dead-Guy:
Since the charges have been dropped, they actually had an innocent man in jail, beaten nearly to death by inmates...


I had a hard time parsing that article, because it was written in Canadian, but I got the idea the charges were dropped because the guy had somehow become a vegetable, not because the police said, "oops, we got the wrong pervert."
 
2009-12-30 02:04:21 PM  
Not An Alt: OH give me a break, the accuser probably dropped the charges after the story got out about him getting beat. No need to send him to prison now, he just got some REAL justice.

You aren't even trying anymore.
 
2009-12-30 02:05:22 PM  
What's she biatching about? That's one less Sex Offender out there to terrize and rape our chillen.

And if he wasn't a Sex Offender, he wouldn't have been arrested and charged.

Good going, Canada. You're keeping your streets safe.

/Real MericanTM
 
2009-12-30 02:05:32 PM  
This: Not An Alt: OH give me a break, the accuser probably dropped the charges after the story got out about him getting beat. No need to send him to prison now, he just got some REAL justice.

You aren't even trying anymore.


When did he ever try?
 
2009-12-30 02:06:39 PM  
This: You aren't even trying anymore.

There's just nothing out there that has that spark anymore. ugh.
 
2009-12-30 02:07:07 PM  
eraser8: Kate Gosselin's Pap Smear: i am not great at geography and things such as, but this was not in a state, but in canada

You're also not great at vocabulary. The term "state" refers to "a body politic." A provincial (or even local) government can legitimately and properly be referred to as "the state."


which one is it on this list so i will know for next time

State

* Sovereign state, a sovereign political entity in international public law
* Federated state, a political entity forming part of a federal sovereign state
* State (polity), the state in sociology and political science
* Nation state, a state which coincides with a nation.
* State (law), a well-defined jurisdiction, with its own set of laws and courts
 
2009-12-30 02:07:42 PM  
SchlingFocker: This is a perfectly valid lawsuit.

When the state incarcerates a person, the state has a duty to provide for their safety and well-being.

The state violated its own regulations enacted to assure prisoner safety, and this man was subsequently beaten to the point of permanent disability.

The state dropped the ball, big-time. Now, they're going to pay.


Why would the mother have standing?

/IANAL or C
 
2009-12-30 02:08:42 PM  
OtherLittleGuy: /Real MericanTM

That would be funnier
if ... they didnt actually exist
 
2009-12-30 02:09:17 PM  
Kate Gosselin's Pap Smear: eraser8: Kate Gosselin's Pap Smear: i am not great at geography and things such as, but this was not in a state, but in canada

You're also not great at vocabulary. The term "state" refers to "a body politic." A provincial (or even local) government can legitimately and properly be referred to as "the state."

which one is it on this list so i will know for next time

State

* Sovereign state, a sovereign political entity in international public law
* Federated state, a political entity forming part of a federal sovereign state
* State (polity), the state in sociology and political science
* Nation state, a state which coincides with a nation.
* State (law), a well-defined jurisdiction, with its own set of laws and courts


In this case, the last definition is probably the best: a well-defined jurisdiction, with its own set of laws and courts.
 
2009-12-30 02:09:22 PM  
Kate Gosselin's Pap Smear: Sovereign state, a sovereign political entity in international public law

^^
 
2009-12-30 02:09:35 PM  
Another Government Employee: Hmm. No details on the "victim's" offence other than it was sexually related.

Too bad the job wasn't finished.


READ man, READ. All charges against him were dropped. He had never been convicted of anything, he was in jail awaiting trial.

"Nicholas Tanner was arrested in August 2008 on a sexual assault allegation and ordered held in custody at the provincial facility while awaiting trial. The charge has since been dropped."
 
2009-12-30 02:09:48 PM  
rumpelstiltskin:
I had a hard time parsing that article, because it was written in Canadian, but I got the idea the charges were dropped because the guy had somehow become a vegetable, not because the police said, "oops, we got the wrong pervert."


I wasn't sure about that either. But either way, the guy had not been convicted of anything, and did not deserve to become braindead.
 
2009-12-30 02:10:25 PM  
Not An Alt: This: You aren't even trying anymore.

There's just nothing out there that has that spark anymore. ugh.


You could try taking the line that sex offenders should be employed in prisons to terrorise other inmates. Just a thought for future threads.
 
2009-12-30 02:10:28 PM  
img101.imageshack.us
 
2009-12-30 02:12:27 PM  
this is how jails work. somebody does something bad, you put them in a box. after a while, you take them out of the box, right? what's the point of doing that? well, the point is that in jail, they get some sort of unspecified punishment, nobody knows what it is because we all turn our backs until the guy comes out of jail. The judge can't say "I sentence you to be raped twice a week", or any kind of specific punishment (because we don't actually know if that works either). So for each kind of crime you get some variable amount of time in the box (a totally arbitrary amount of time of course, because wtf do we know?), and whatever happens to them there is what they deserve for that crime, and then they come out.
 
2009-12-30 02:12:31 PM  
Kate Gosselin's Pap Smear: State

Before the "states" were united, they were states too.
America did not invent the word

(ditto on democracy, freedom, english, pizza, facism..... we just improved those)
 
2009-12-30 02:13:17 PM  
Oliver Twisted: Why would the mother have standing?

The mother could certainly sue either as guardian or as next friend.
 
2009-12-30 02:14:18 PM  
Slartibartfaster: Before the "states" were united, they were states too.
America did not invent the word

(ditto on democracy, freedom, english, pizza, facism..... we just improved those)


Really?
 
2009-12-30 02:14:37 PM  
Oliver Twisted: SchlingFocker: This is a perfectly valid lawsuit.

When the state incarcerates a person, the state has a duty to provide for their safety and well-being.

The state violated its own regulations enacted to assure prisoner safety, and this man was subsequently beaten to the point of permanent disability.

The state dropped the ball, big-time. Now, they're going to pay.

Why would the mother have standing?

/IANAL or C


Most likely she's suing in his name, not her own. She can do that, because as next of kin, she's likely his legal proxy due to his incapacitation.
 
2009-12-30 02:15:39 PM  
Kate Gosselin's Pap Smear: SchlingFocker: This is a perfectly valid lawsuit.

When the state incarcerates a person, the state has a duty to provide for their safety and well-being.

The state violated its own regulations enacted to assure prisoner safety, and this man was subsequently beaten to the point of permanent disability.

The state dropped the ball, big-time. Now, they're going to pay.

i am not great at geography and things such as, but this was not in a state, but in canada

\aren't they called Providences?


Actually still right. The term "state" refers to any sovereign governing body. We just used it to also mean how we divided up our country. It was a deliberate name choice, we were no longer colonies, we were independent states that ruled themselves, we figured out later that hamstringing the federal government was a dumb idea. (It can also mean a type of governing body "police state".)
 
2009-12-30 02:15:40 PM  
eraser8: Kate Gosselin's Pap Smear: i am not great at geography and things such as, but this was not in a state, but in canada

You're also not great at vocabulary. The term "state" refers to "a body politic." A provincial (or even local) government can legitimately and properly be referred to as "the state."


Maybe it really is Kate Gosselin.
 
2009-12-30 02:16:04 PM  
ciocia: SchlingFocker: This is a perfectly valid lawsuit.

When the state incarcerates a person, the state has a duty to provide for their safety and well-being.

The state violated its own regulations enacted to assure prisoner safety, and this man was subsequently beaten to the point of permanent disability.

The state dropped the ball, big-time. Now, they're going to pay.

That should be, but if every prisoner who got raped or shivved in prison or jail sued, they could not print enough money to pay them off. Things like that happen so much as to be unremarkable--except that his mother filed suit.


The remarkable thing is that this sort of thing happens so often in the states that it is deemed acceptable, prison rape jokes and such. Look at Britain or Canada, this sort of thing just doesn't happen like it does here.

/Yeah, this was a story from Canada
//Prison rape isn't funny. Jokes sure, but the actuality isn't.
 
2009-12-30 02:16:19 PM  
eraser8: Slartibartfaster: Before the "states" were united, they were states too.
America did not invent the word

(ditto on democracy, freedom, english, pizza, facism..... we just improved those)

Really?


it existed elsewhere before hand
it just sucked

"no cheese ? really ?, gimme some anchovies ya spick"
 
2009-12-30 02:17:30 PM  
ciocia: That should be, but if every prisoner who got raped or shivved in prison or jail sued, they could not print enough money to pay them off. Things like that happen so much as to be unremarkable--except that his mother filed suit.

Perhaps the problem is that it is common. We joke about prision rape quite a lot on Fark, but watching the parade of people coming off Death Row as a result of DNA testing makes me think that we should revisit the importance of Innocent Until Proven Guilty. Because sometimes even the "proven" guilty are not.
 
2009-12-30 02:18:10 PM  
Nicholas Tanner was arrested in August 2008 on a sexual assault

These threads usually have some people who claim that sexual predators can not be rehabilitated. This article proves otherwise.

a vicious jailhouse attack that left him with permanent brain damage.
 
2009-12-30 02:18:14 PM  
brigid_fitch: SchlingFocker: The state dropped the ball, big-time. Now, they're going to pay.

IANAL [...]


I'm probably the first to point this out, but given the reputation around Fark (and life in general) when it comes to prison, "I Am Not A Laywer" is one of the most hilariously inappropriate acronyms ever devised. I had to look it up and everything.
 
2009-12-30 02:19:03 PM  
punto: this is how jails work. somebody does something bad, you put them in a box. after a while, you take them out of the box, right? what's the point of doing that? well, the point is that in jail, they get some sort of unspecified punishment, nobody knows what it is because we all turn our backs until the guy comes out of jail. The judge can't say "I sentence you to be raped twice a week", or any kind of specific punishment (because we don't actually know if that works either). So for each kind of crime you get some variable amount of time in the box (a totally arbitrary amount of time of course, because wtf do we know?), and whatever happens to them there is what they deserve for that crime, and then they come out.

The punishment is to be locked up, and without freedom, for an amount of time determined at a trial. If you honestly believe the crap you posted, you're a sick fark.
 
2009-12-30 02:19:19 PM  
ciocia: There are people who have been convicted who are not guilty of any number of crimes, so why single out sex crimes?

Because people accused of sex crimes get singled out for retribution in jails and prisons.

The idea that I can be falsely accused for a crime, jailed for a limited time until I made bail, and then exonerated is not terrifying to me. Jail doesn't sound fun by any means, but I could certainly live through being Anonymous Prisoner #3X7 or whatever until my name was cleared.

Not so with a sex offense. With assclowns like the prison authorities in the article, you are receiving something close to a death sentence without any sort of trial. That's the part that scares me, and that's why cases like this need to be treated seriously.
 
2009-12-30 02:20:24 PM  
eraser8: Oliver Twisted: Why would the mother have standing?

The mother could certainly sue either as guardian or as next friend.


I of course assumed the son was of adult age no longer having a guardian. Next friend is interesting.
 
2009-12-30 02:20:33 PM  
Toquinha: the most hilariously inappropriate acronyms ever devised

IANAT (proposing this for the competition)

www.granitegrok.com
 
2009-12-30 02:21:28 PM  
Oliver Twisted: eraser8: Oliver Twisted: Why would the mother have standing?

The mother could certainly sue either as guardian or as next friend.

I of course assumed the son was of adult age no longer having a guardian. Next friend is interesting.


Well even if he was 50 she would become his guardian after this.
 
2009-12-30 02:21:33 PM  
Sybarite: Let's be clear, this was a jail, not a prison. Huge difference. This guy hadn't been sentenced to anything. Any person here could be accused of a sex offense and run into a judge that denies them bail for any number of reasons.


Yea, jail state or federal may be the hard time but it's due to lack of recreation. You are stuck in a room with no windows. Most of the fighting is due to someone being an asshole or doing something crazy like spitting on someone.

If this guy got beat up that bad he wasn't just minding his own business.
 
2009-12-30 02:21:48 PM  
Oliver Twisted: eraser8: Oliver Twisted: Why would the mother have standing?

The mother could certainly sue either as guardian or as next friend.

I of course assumed the son was of adult age no longer having a guardian. Next friend is interesting.


Well if he is brain damaged, he certainly has a guardian now. You think he's making any decisions about his health care at this point?
 
2009-12-30 02:22:42 PM  
ciocia: SchlingFocker: This is a perfectly valid lawsuit.

When the state incarcerates a person, the state has a duty to provide for their safety and well-being.

The state violated its own regulations enacted to assure prisoner safety, and this man was subsequently beaten to the point of permanent disability.

The state dropped the ball, big-time. Now, they're going to pay.

That should be, but if every prisoner who got raped or shivved in prison or jail sued, they could not print enough money to pay them off. Things like that happen so much as to be unremarkable--except that his mother filed suit.



Every prisoner who gets raped or shivved in prison should sue, and they should win. I think prison should be a balance of punishment and rehabilitation.

U.S. prisons are like investments that mature into sociopaths. You put a stupid ass with poor decision-making skills in and 10 years later you get a full-blown violent criminal.
 
2009-12-30 02:23:06 PM  
ciocia: people who have been convicted who are not guilty of any number of crimes, so why single out sex crimes

cuz they get beaten into brain damage some times ? more often than others

ciocia: everybody accused of a sex crime was just a 16 year old boning his 15 year old girlfriend

Your world where everyone is guilty is SO much nicer
Italians tried that one too
 
2009-12-30 02:23:15 PM  
talking_tree: Another Government Employee: Hmm. No details on the "victim's" offence other than it was sexually related.

Too bad the job wasn't finished.

READ man, READ. All charges against him were dropped. He had never been convicted of anything, he was in jail awaiting trial.

"Nicholas Tanner was arrested in August 2008 on a sexual assault allegation and ordered held in custody at the provincial facility while awaiting trial. The charge has since been dropped."


It was dropped only because he was no longer comepetent to stand trial. Not for lack of evidence.
 
2009-12-30 02:24:52 PM  
rumpelstiltskin: Dead-Guy:
Since the charges have been dropped, they actually had an innocent man in jail, beaten nearly to death by inmates...

I had a hard time parsing that article, because it was written in Canadian, but I got the idea the charges were dropped because the guy had somehow become a vegetable, not because the police said, "oops, we got the wrong pervert."


I agree, but he's still "Innocent until proven guilty".. so since he apparently hadn't been proven guilty, he was an innocent man.
 
2009-12-30 02:25:10 PM  
ertznay: On a completely different sidenote, -17C in Manitoba!!?? That is some serious cold.

Nah, it's not as bas as you think. It's -50 that hurts.

/You dress the same as us in New York, you just need a little better boot.
 
2009-12-30 02:25:17 PM  
Another Government Employee: It was dropped only because he was no longer comepetent to stand trial. Not for lack of evidence.

[citation needed]
 
2009-12-30 02:25:54 PM  
CowboyNinjaD: Every prisoner who gets raped or shivved in prison should sue, and they should win. I think prison should be a balance of punishment and rehabilitation.

Some of those snitches deserve it.
 
2009-12-30 02:26:31 PM  
Felix_T_Cat: ertznay: On a completely different sidenote, -17C in Manitoba!!?? That is some serious cold.

Nah, it's not as bas as you think. It's -50 that hurts.

/You dress the same as us in New York, you just need a little better boot.


Crap ...bad...
 
2009-12-30 02:28:32 PM  
tweekster: Another Government Employee: It was dropped only because he was no longer comepetent to stand trial. Not for lack of evidence.

[citation needed]


ftfa

Court records also show the Crown entered a stay-of-proceedings against Tanner in August - likely due to his grave medical condition and inability to attend court.

 
2009-12-30 02:29:40 PM  
LaraAmber: Oliver Twisted: eraser8: Oliver Twisted: Why would the mother have standing?

The mother could certainly sue either as guardian or as next friend.

I of course assumed the son was of adult age no longer having a guardian. Next friend is interesting.

Well if he is brain damaged, he certainly has a guardian now. You think he's making any decisions about his health care at this point?


If he is brain dead in a hospital than wouldn't the hospital be his guardian?
 
2009-12-30 02:30:15 PM  
Another Government Employee: likely due to his grave medical condition and inability to attend court.

So you turned that possibility into an outright fact.
 
2009-12-30 02:30:28 PM  
tweekster: Another Government Employee: It was dropped only because he was no longer comepetent to stand trial. Not for lack of evidence.

[citation needed]


FTFA:

Court records also show the Crown entered a stay-of-proceedings against Tanner in August - likely due to his grave medical condition and inability to attend court.

Speculation on the article writer's part... but it does actually appear in the article.
 
2009-12-30 02:30:52 PM  
1nsanilicious: I would guess that theres a good reason most of the time that someone is suspected.

Oh, there's a reason, all right. a good reason, not always. Sometimes the reason is that the suspect committed a crime. Sometimes the reason is police incompetence, or racism, or just a matter of convenience.
 
2009-12-30 02:31:22 PM  
Speaking of that.. if I have a picture of a grown womans naked body with a 12 year old's head photoshopped onto it, can I get busted?
 
2009-12-30 02:31:54 PM  
tweekster: Another Government Employee: likely due to his grave medical condition and inability to attend court.

So you turned that possibility into an outright fact.


I would say the Crown does not expect improvement.
 
2009-12-30 02:32:14 PM  
ciocia: Cagey B: Personally, I find it kind of scary that essentially any person at random could be accused of the myriad of offenses we consider "sex crimes" any crimes, without any proof, and end up in a similar situation.

There are people who have been convicted who are not guilty of any number of crimes, so why single out sex crimes? Oh right, because this is fark, and everybody accused of a sex crime was just a 16 year old boning his 15 year old girlfriend, or taking a pee behind a building.


Sex crimes, terrorism, and hate attacks, are pretty much three crimes in our society that people have lost all common sense about. Try entertaining the idea that someone accused of any of those things is innocent, and pretty much watch how quick you are accused of being a pervert, terrorist, or racist.

If I say I think someone accused of bankrobbing is innocent, no one accuses me of being a bank robber or of supporting bank robbery... they simply believe that it is my opinion that he is innocent. If someone is accused of being a drug dealer, and I say that I think the person is innocent, I won't be accused of being a drug dealer or of supporting the illegal drug trade. Say out loud that you believe someone accused of being a sex criminal, or terrorist, or violent racist, is innocent, and you are pretty much going to get your ass beat, investigated by the police, etc., etc.

So we are singling out sex crimes, because sex crimes are one of the three crimes where people go apeshiat and lose all forms of common sense. To be accused is to be guilty.
 
2009-12-30 02:32:46 PM  
Don't wanna get your ass kicked in prison? Don't do things that land you there....

/he didn't have his trial yet tho... pre-trial should be safer than after conviction
 
2009-12-30 02:32:58 PM  
I am certain that Another Government Employee is a serial child molestor.


Prove me wrong.
 
2009-12-30 02:33:05 PM  
Oliver Twisted: If he is brain dead in a hospital than wouldn't the hospital be his guardian?

No. The hospital would be his caregiver, not his guardian.
 
2009-12-30 02:34:46 PM  
Oliver Twisted: LaraAmber: Oliver Twisted: eraser8: Oliver Twisted: Why would the mother have standing?

The mother could certainly sue either as guardian or as next friend.

I of course assumed the son was of adult age no longer having a guardian. Next friend is interesting.

Well if he is brain damaged, he certainly has a guardian now. You think he's making any decisions about his health care at this point?

If he is brain dead in a hospital than wouldn't the hospital be his guardian?


Uh no. That would be a conflict of interest. If someone is unable to make decisions themselves, and there is no one already with the durable power of attorney for healthcare (or equivalent) then the court appoints someone. If the court can't find someone (no living relatives for example) it picks someone else, sometimes a hospital employee with special training, or maybe the person's lawyer.
 
2009-12-30 02:34:54 PM  
Retarded Rabid Elk: If I say I think someone accused of bankrobbing is innocent, no one accuses me of being a bank robber or of supporting bank robbery...

I will. In fact, I will right now: you're a bank robber, aren't you? Either that or you're in league with bank robbers. Bastard.
 
2009-12-30 02:35:17 PM  
Slartibartfaster: ciocia: people who have been convicted who are not guilty of any number of crimes, so why single out sex crimes

cuz they get beaten into brain damage some times ? more often than others

ciocia: everybody accused of a sex crime was just a 16 year old boning his 15 year old girlfriend

Your world where everyone is guilty is SO much nicer
Italians tried that one too


Your first point is valid--sex offenders are often singled out for abuse by prisoners. Your second one is baloney. I never said, or even implied, that "everyone is guilty." I implied that on fark, NOBODY who is accused of a sex crime has apparently done anything bad, even if they are guilty, because all sex offenders are locked up for trivial reasons. Please read more carefully.
 
2009-12-30 02:35:57 PM  
Burchill: I am certain that Another Government Employee is a serial child molestor.


Prove me wrong.


It would help if you gave a bit more information.

With the Glenn Beck Meme-there ARE a couple of unsolved murders that fit both the time frame and Mr. Beck's location in 1990. Of course, no one has actually cleared or not cleared him.
 
2009-12-30 02:36:48 PM  
Retarded Rabid Elk: ciocia: Cagey B: Personally, I find it kind of scary that essentially any person at random could be accused of the myriad of offenses we consider "sex crimes" any crimes, without any proof, and end up in a similar situation.

There are people who have been convicted who are not guilty of any number of crimes, so why single out sex crimes? Oh right, because this is fark, and everybody accused of a sex crime was just a 16 year old boning his 15 year old girlfriend, or taking a pee behind a building.

Sex crimes, terrorism, and hate attacks, are pretty much three crimes in our society that people have lost all common sense about. Try entertaining the idea that someone accused of any of those things is innocent, and pretty much watch how quick you are accused of being a pervert, terrorist, or racist.

If I say I think someone accused of bankrobbing is innocent, no one accuses me of being a bank robber or of supporting bank robbery... they simply believe that it is my opinion that he is innocent. If someone is accused of being a drug dealer, and I say that I think the person is innocent, I won't be accused of being a drug dealer or of supporting the illegal drug trade. Say out loud that you believe someone accused of being a sex criminal, or terrorist, or violent racist, is innocent, and you are pretty much going to get your ass beat, investigated by the police, etc., etc.

So we are singling out sex crimes, because sex crimes are one of the three crimes where people go apeshiat and lose all forms of common sense. To be accused is to be guilty.


Everywhere but Fark, where all sex offenders took a pee, etc.
 
2009-12-30 02:36:50 PM  
Burchill: I am certain that Another Government Employee is a serial child molestor.


Prove me wrong.


He won't be brought to trial however as he's clearly braindead.
 
2009-12-30 02:37:56 PM  
ertznay: On a completely different sidenote, -17C in Manitoba!!?? That is some serious cold.

Hahah what? No it isn't. That's a beautiful day.
 
2009-12-30 02:38:06 PM  
talking_tree: Another Government Employee: Hmm. No details on the "victim's" offence other than it was sexually related.

Too bad the job wasn't finished.

READ man, READ. All charges against him were dropped. He had never been convicted of anything, he was in jail awaiting trial.

"Nicholas Tanner was arrested in August 2008 on a sexual assault allegation and ordered held in custody at the provincial facility while awaiting trial. The charge has since been dropped."


tweekster: Another Government Employee: It was dropped only because he was no longer comepetent to stand trial. Not for lack of evidence.

[citation needed]


FTFA - author opinion, I think, but in black and white, people.

"Court records also show the Crown entered a stay-of-proceedings against Tanner in August - likely due to his grave medical condition and inability to attend court."
 
2009-12-30 02:39:17 PM  
HunterNIU: Don't wanna get your ass kicked in prison? Don't do things that land you there....

/he didn't have his trial yet tho... pre-trial should be safer than after conviction


The trick is you gotta kick someones ass the first day, or you'll be somebody's biatch.
 
2009-12-30 02:39:57 PM  
Cook claims another Headingley inmate attacked Tanner on April 6, 2009, repeatedly punching and kicking him in the head until he was unconscious and causing "massive neurological injury."

Hmmm..too bad.
 
2009-12-30 02:41:18 PM  
MaxxLarge: It seems he is paying the price
For screwing up order with vice.
The beating he's taken
Has sure left him shaken,
But prison's not meant to be nice.


For the WIN!!!
 
2009-12-30 02:42:20 PM  
Kate Gosselin's Pap Smear: 1nsanilicious: tweekster: ciocia: Cagey B: Personally, I find it kind of scary that essentially any person at random could be accused of the myriad of offenses we consider "sex crimes" any crimes, without any proof, and end up in a similar situation.

There are people who have been convicted who are not guilty of any number of crimes, so why single out sex crimes? Oh right, because this is fark, and everybody accused of a sex crime was just a 16 year old boning his 15 year old girlfriend, or taking a pee behind a building.

Don't forget the girl that was drunk and changed her mind the next morning.

Or the making coffee naked infront of the window

what happened to that dude?


He took 2 sugars & wiped his p*cker on the drapes?
 
2009-12-30 02:42:32 PM  
From the Article: Nicholas Tanner was arrested in August 2008 on a sexual assault allegation and ordered held in custody at the provincial facility while awaiting trial. The charge has since been dropped.

Translation: He pissed off a girlfriend by not caving in to her whim.
 
2009-12-30 02:43:31 PM  
williamfeldmann: talking_tree: Another Government Employee: Hmm. No details on the "victim's" offence other than it was sexually related.

Too bad the job wasn't finished.

READ man, READ. All charges against him were dropped. He had never been convicted of anything, he was in jail awaiting trial.

"Nicholas Tanner was arrested in August 2008 on a sexual assault allegation and ordered held in custody at the provincial facility while awaiting trial. The charge has since been dropped."

tweekster: Another Government Employee: It was dropped only because he was no longer comepetent to stand trial. Not for lack of evidence.

[citation needed]

FTFA - author opinion, I think, but in black and white, people.

"Court records also show the Crown entered a stay-of-proceedings against Tanner in August - likely due to his grave medical condition and inability to attend court."


I'm not sure of the public records availability there, but a copy of the stay request and the reason should be available for public view.
 
2009-12-30 02:45:16 PM  
Cagey B: Personally, I find it kind of scary that essentially any person at random could be accused of the myriad of offenses we consider "sex crimes", without any proof, and end up in a similar situation.

Which is why you post bail when you're given the opportunity.OtherLittleGuy: What's she biatching about? That's one less Sex Offender out there to terrize and rape our chillen.

And if he wasn't a Sex Offender, he wouldn't have been arrested and charged.

Good going, Canada. You're keeping your streets safe.

/Real MericanTM


wha??? Charges dropped = not sex offender. Where did it say the ALLEGED sex assault was on a child?...and for the record it's terrorize...comes from the word terror. -1 for you.
 
2009-12-30 02:50:20 PM  
Merkin Muffley: The punishment is to be locked up, and without freedom, for an amount of time determined at a trial. If you honestly believe the crap you posted, you're a sick fark.

It's not me who believes it, it's you, and the rest of society. what does locking someone up get you? does fix whatever they did wrong? does it give you any assurance that they won't commit a crime again? it doesn't. you just want them punished, and you know that something bad happens to them while they're locked up.
 
2009-12-30 02:52:53 PM  
ciocia: SchlingFocker: This is a perfectly valid lawsuit.

When the state incarcerates a person, the state has a duty to provide for their safety and well-being.

The state violated its own regulations enacted to assure prisoner safety, and this man was subsequently beaten to the point of permanent disability.

The state dropped the ball, big-time. Now, they're going to pay.

That should be, but if every prisoner who got raped or shivved in prison or jail sued, they could not print enough money to pay them off.


Or maybe they'd clean up the jails?
 
2009-12-30 02:55:03 PM  
Somewhat off-topic here, but I got summoned for jury duty next week. Any creative ideas for being stricken quickly without being too obvious or offensive? I was thinking about asking if public castration was still legal.

/HATE jury duty
//3rd time in 2 yrs
///$10 says they're mostly DUI cases and will plead out
 
2009-12-30 02:56:16 PM  
ciocia: Retarded Rabid Elk: ciocia: Cagey B: Personally, I find it kind of scary that essentially any person at random could be accused of the myriad of offenses we consider "sex crimes" any crimes, without any proof, and end up in a similar situation.

There are people who have been convicted who are not guilty of any number of crimes, so why single out sex crimes? Oh right, because this is fark, and everybody accused of a sex crime was just a 16 year old boning his 15 year old girlfriend, or taking a pee behind a building.

Sex crimes, terrorism, and hate attacks, are pretty much three crimes in our society that people have lost all common sense about. Try entertaining the idea that someone accused of any of those things is innocent, and pretty much watch how quick you are accused of being a pervert, terrorist, or racist.

If I say I think someone accused of bankrobbing is innocent, no one accuses me of being a bank robber or of supporting bank robbery... they simply believe that it is my opinion that he is innocent. If someone is accused of being a drug dealer, and I say that I think the person is innocent, I won't be accused of being a drug dealer or of supporting the illegal drug trade. Say out loud that you believe someone accused of being a sex criminal, or terrorist, or violent racist, is innocent, and you are pretty much going to get your ass beat, investigated by the police, etc., etc.

So we are singling out sex crimes, because sex crimes are one of the three crimes where people go apeshiat and lose all forms of common sense. To be accused is to be guilty.

Everywhere but Fark, where all sex offenders took a pee, etc.


Or were unjustly framed by a pissed off girlfriend or flashed an old lady, the list goes on. This is Fark where a 50 year old man can go after a 12 year and the Farkers in here will claim the 12 year old was a slut looking for it.
 
2009-12-30 03:00:14 PM  
Farkwaddle: Somewhat off-topic here, but I got summoned for jury duty next week. Any creative ideas for being stricken quickly without being too obvious or offensive? I was thinking about asking if public castration was still legal.

/HATE jury duty
//3rd time in 2 yrs
///$10 says they're mostly DUI cases and will plead out


make yourself sound extremely biased? hearing problems? vision problems?
 
2009-12-30 03:03:41 PM  
punto: Merkin Muffley: The punishment is to be locked up, and without freedom, for an amount of time determined at a trial. If you honestly believe the crap you posted, you're a sick fark.

It's not me who believes it, it's you, and the rest of society. what does locking someone up get you? does fix whatever they did wrong? does it give you any assurance that they won't commit a crime again? it doesn't. you just want them punished, and you know that something bad happens to them while they're locked up.


In Britain, I don't think most people expect or want a prisoner to be raped and beaten up. In the US, that seems to be different and according to you should be expected. Taking away someone's freedom for ten years seems pretty harsh to me without the violence and rape. We shouldn't need US organisations trying to legislate away prison rape, they shouldn't even have to exist, but they do.

What we've got going now is a system that doesn't correct anything and turns out people worse than when they went in, and precludes them from ever really having a job other than auto mechanic. So don't tell me it's what I believe, you're the one telling me we should all expect and applaud prisoners being beaten up and raped in addition to the prison term, since apparently the term itself is a cakewalk.
 
2009-12-30 03:10:00 PM  
I know I am late to the game, but did they drop the charges because of what happened in jail, or because of evidence?
 
2009-12-30 03:11:51 PM  
Farkwaddle: //3rd time in 2 yrs

Unlikely. You can only be called once every 12 months. If they send you a summons you reply asking for your civic duty to be deferred because you've served in the past year.

As for a legal way to get out of it - say you support and fully believe in Jury Nullification. You won't be held in contemt as you would if you said you were a racist or some of the more obvious ways of getting out of jury duty.
 
2009-12-30 03:14:41 PM  
farkingatwork: Farkwaddle: Somewhat off-topic here, but I got summoned for jury duty next week. Any creative ideas for being stricken quickly without being too obvious or offensive? I was thinking about asking if public castration was still legal.

/HATE jury duty
//3rd time in 2 yrs
///$10 says they're mostly DUI cases and will plead out

make yourself sound extremely biased? hearing problems? vision problems?


DUI? Give 'em the chair. Wife beater? Extended shower time with the queens. Petty theft? Cut his dominent index finger off. Sexual predator? Public castration with extended shower time in general population.

/might do it
 
2009-12-30 03:14:49 PM  
Felix_T_Cat: ertznay: On a completely different sidenote, -17C in Manitoba!!?? That is some serious cold.

Nah, it's not as bas as you think. It's -50 that hurts.

/You dress the same as us in New York, you just need a little better boot.


yea, a-boot that...
 
2009-12-30 03:16:23 PM  
Talon: Farkwaddle: //3rd time in 2 yrs

Unlikely. You can only be called once every 12 months. If they send you a summons you reply asking for your civic duty to be deferred because you've served in the past year.

As for a legal way to get out of it - say you support and fully believe in Jury Nullification. You won't be held in contemt as you would if you said you were a racist or some of the more obvious ways of getting out of jury duty.


They did it. 3 times in 2 years. I didn't fight it though because at the time I needed a break from work. It's been over 12mo since my last duty, so I can't fight this one.
 
2009-12-30 03:17:24 PM  
Nicholas Tanner was arrested in August 2008 on a sexual assault allegation and ordered held in custody at the provincial facility while awaiting trial. The charge has since been dropped.


I guess subby missed the part where he wasn't actually a sex offender... it's ok, almost half the people are below average intelligence (some are average, so you can't say half are below).
 
2009-12-30 03:18:49 PM  
Another Government Employee: Burchill: I am certain that Another Government Employee is a serial child molestor.


Prove me wrong.

It would help if you gave a bit more information.

With the Glenn Beck Meme-there ARE a couple of unsolved murders that fit both the time frame and Mr. Beck's location in 1990. Of course, no one has actually cleared or not cleared him.


But we already know that you are infact Glenn Beck... So what's your point?
 
2009-12-30 03:24:10 PM  
downstairs
Charges were dropped, subby. So no, he is not a sex offender.


of course the fact that he made it to the hospital instead of his trial where the charges hadn't been dropped... might have something to do with that. It's pointless to imprison someone who's stuck in their own bodies without being able to do a single thing for the rest of their lives.
 
2009-12-30 03:24:34 PM  
SchlingFocker: This is a perfectly valid lawsuit.

When the state incarcerates a person, the state has a duty to provide for their safety and well-being.

The state violated its own regulations enacted to assure prisoner safety, and this man was subsequently beaten to the point of permanent disability.

The state dropped the ball, big-time. Now, they're going to pay.


Yup. We shouldn't turn a blind eye to prison violence, especially as this guy wasn't even convicted of anything.

1nsanilicious: Cagey B: Personally, I find it kind of scary that essentially any person at random could be accused of the myriad of offenses we consider "sex crimes", without any proof, and end up in a similar situation.

I wonder how many people are placed in those situations with out any legitimate cause? I would guess that theres a good reason most of the time that someone is suspected.


Remember that it's a sex offense. All too often those are false allegations.

ciocia: SchlingFocker: This is a perfectly valid lawsuit.

When the state incarcerates a person, the state has a duty to provide for their safety and well-being.

The state violated its own regulations enacted to assure prisoner safety, and this man was subsequently beaten to the point of permanent disability.

The state dropped the ball, big-time. Now, they're going to pay.

That should be, but if every prisoner who got raped or shivved in prison or jail sued, they could not print enough money to pay them off. Things like that happen so much as to be unremarkable--except that his mother filed suit.


So because a problem is widespread we should just accept it?!?!

Dead-Guy: Look to the bigger picture here.

He wasn't a sex offender, he was presumed to be innocent but going to court, just in-case he might have been guilty.

So since he wasn't a sex offender, because he was presumably innocent they treated him no differently than the 'proven guilty' guilty folks around him.

Since the charges have been dropped, they actually had an innocent man in jail, beaten nearly to death by inmates.


Actually, we don't know whether he was guilty or not. It could be the charges were dropped because there was no longer any point in punishing him.
 
2009-12-30 03:24:40 PM  
Latinwolf:
Or were unjustly framed by a pissed off girlfriend or flashed an old lady, the list goes on. This is Fark where a 50 year old man can go after a 12 year and the Farkers in here will claim the 12 year old was a slut looking for it.


Thats not entirely true, remember that freakish 30 something WoW addict that tried to abduct a 13 year old? He had that weird bed sore sticking out of his shirt. NO ONE was rushing to his defense.
 
2009-12-30 03:26:49 PM  
Altourus: Latinwolf:
Or were unjustly framed by a pissed off girlfriend or flashed an old lady, the list goes on. This is Fark where a 50 year old man can go after a 12 year and the Farkers in here will claim the 12 year old was a slut looking for it.

Thats not entirely true, remember that freakish 30 something WoW addict that tried to abduct a 13 year old? He had that weird bed sore sticking out of his shirt. NO ONE was rushing to his defense.


I forgot about that guy, thanks for the image.
 
2009-12-30 03:28:37 PM  
Loren:
ciocia: SchlingFocker: This is a perfectly valid lawsuit.

When the state incarcerates a person, the state has a duty to provide for their safety and well-being.

The state violated its own regulations enacted to assure prisoner safety, and this man was subsequently beaten to the point of permanent disability.

The state dropped the ball, big-time. Now, they're going to pay.

That should be, but if every prisoner who got raped or shivved in prison or jail sued, they could not print enough money to pay them off. Things like that happen so much as to be unremarkable--except that his mother filed suit.

So because a problem is widespread we should just accept it?!?!

Where did I say that?
 
2009-12-30 03:29:10 PM  
Merkin Muffley: Altourus: Latinwolf:
Or were unjustly framed by a pissed off girlfriend or flashed an old lady, the list goes on. This is Fark where a 50 year old man can go after a 12 year and the Farkers in here will claim the 12 year old was a slut looking for it.

Thats not entirely true, remember that freakish 30 something WoW addict that tried to abduct a 13 year old? He had that weird bed sore sticking out of his shirt. NO ONE was rushing to his defense.

I forgot about that guy, thanks for the image.


Always glad to help :p
 
2009-12-30 03:30:28 PM  
BackAssward:
I guess subby missed the part where he wasn't actually a sex offender... it's ok, almost half the people are below average intelligence (some are average, so you can't say half are below).



The charges were dropped after the beating because he can't stand trial anymore, him being a vegetable.

So he's actually like Schrodinger's Rapist. The state of his guilt or innocence has never actually been established so he's both at once.
 
2009-12-30 03:34:02 PM  
Loren: SchlingFocker: This is a perfectly valid lawsuit.


Actually, we don't know whether he was guilty or not. It could be the charges were dropped because there was no longer any point in punishing him.


Or because he's not mentally competent to stand trial, doesn't mean he's innocent as his defenders have been claiming. O.J. Simpson was found innocent of murder charges in criminal court, how many of those same defenders would claim he was actually innocent?
 
2009-12-30 03:34:32 PM  
Merkin Muffley: punto: Merkin Muffley: The punishment is to be locked up, and without freedom, for an amount of time determined at a trial. If you honestly believe the crap you posted, you're a sick fark.

It's not me who believes it, it's you, and the rest of society. what does locking someone up get you? does fix whatever they did wrong? does it give you any assurance that they won't commit a crime again? it doesn't. you just want them punished, and you know that something bad happens to them while they're locked up.

In Britain, I don't think most people expect or want a prisoner to be raped and beaten up. In the US, that seems to be different and according to you should be expected. Taking away someone's freedom for ten years seems pretty harsh to me without the violence and rape. We shouldn't need US organisations trying to legislate away prison rape, they shouldn't even have to exist, but they do.

What we've got going now is a system that doesn't correct anything and turns out people worse than when they went in, and precludes them from ever really having a job other than auto mechanic. So don't tell me it's what I believe, you're the one telling me we should all expect and applaud prisoners being beaten up and raped in addition to the prison term, since apparently the term itself is a cakewalk.


It's apparently not a justice system. It's a "revenge" system.
Unfortunately the proponents of this "revenge-based" system get votes (especially from the older citizens with cement for brains and others with limited critical-thinking abilities).

Pandering politicians with no scruples are the real reasons for this.

As to those slimy politicking Crown Prosecutors here in Canada, here are a few of their victims...

Donald Marshall, Jr., Steven Truscott, Susanh Nelles, Robert Baltovich, David Milgaard, Guy Paul Morin, James Driskell, Bill Mullins-Johnson
 
2009-12-30 03:35:29 PM  
Altourus: Latinwolf:
Or were unjustly framed by a pissed off girlfriend or flashed an old lady, the list goes on. This is Fark where a 50 year old man can go after a 12 year and the Farkers in here will claim the 12 year old was a slut looking for it.

Thats not entirely true, remember that freakish 30 something WoW addict that tried to abduct a 13 year old? He had that weird bed sore sticking out of his shirt. NO ONE was rushing to his defense.


Can you post a link to that thread?
 
2009-12-30 03:37:38 PM  
Day_Old_Dutchie: Merkin Muffley: punto: Merkin Muffley: The punishment is to be locked up, and without freedom, for an amount of time determined at a trial. If you honestly believe the crap you posted, you're a sick fark.

It's not me who believes it, it's you, and the rest of society. what does locking someone up get you? does fix whatever they did wrong? does it give you any assurance that they won't commit a crime again? it doesn't. you just want them punished, and you know that something bad happens to them while they're locked up.

In Britain, I don't think most people expect or want a prisoner to be raped and beaten up. In the US, that seems to be different and according to you should be expected. Taking away someone's freedom for ten years seems pretty harsh to me without the violence and rape. We shouldn't need US organisations trying to legislate away prison rape, they shouldn't even have to exist, but they do.

What we've got going now is a system that doesn't correct anything and turns out people worse than when they went in, and precludes them from ever really having a job other than auto mechanic. So don't tell me it's what I believe, you're the one telling me we should all expect and applaud prisoners being beaten up and raped in addition to the prison term, since apparently the term itself is a cakewalk.

It's apparently not a justice system. It's a "revenge" system.
Unfortunately the proponents of this "revenge-based" system get votes (especially from the older citizens with cement for brains and others with limited critical-thinking abilities).

Pandering politicians with no scruples are the real reasons for this.

As to those slimy politicking Crown Prosecutors here in Canada, here are a few of their victims...

Donald Marshall, Jr., Steven Truscott, Susanh Nelles, Robert Baltovich, David Milgaard, Guy Paul Morin, James Driskell, Bill Mullins-Johnson


So you're claiming that there are no criminals who deserved to be locked up, that they should just run around free.
 
2009-12-30 03:38:12 PM  
TFA seems to be missing lots of info that would be important to make a decent opinion. Snark or not.
Maybe he was being an asshat and the beating had nothing to do with anything else but that?
Maybe he told someone about all the kiddies he diddled?
Maybe he ran into an old nemisis?
Maybe the one who beat him would have beat anyone that day?
Maybe he wouldn't share his cigs?
Maybe, maybe, maybe... whatever. Crap reporting.

Most all jails suck and are filled with dangers. Try your best to never be in one.
 
2009-12-30 03:39:17 PM  
Farkwaddle: Somewhat off-topic here, but I got summoned for jury duty next week. Any creative ideas for being stricken quickly without being too obvious or offensive? I was thinking about asking if public castration was still legal.

/HATE jury duty
//3rd time in 2 yrs
///$10 says they're mostly DUI cases and will plead out


If it's a longer trial (or a trial scheduled on another date), say you can't get permission for the time off work, or that your employer doesn't pay for jury duty, and that you can't afford to pay bills if you're not working. Judges let people off for financial hardship without batting an eye.
 
2009-12-30 03:42:13 PM  
BackAssward: Nicholas Tanner was arrested in August 2008 on a sexual assault allegation and ordered held in custody at the provincial facility while awaiting trial. The charge has since been dropped.


I guess subby missed the part where he wasn't actually a sex offender... it's ok, almost half the people are below average intelligence (some are average, so you can't say half are below).


Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.

RIP George.
 
2009-12-30 03:44:41 PM  
Loren:
Since the charges have been dropped, they actually had an innocent man in jail, beaten nearly to death by inmates.

Actually, we don't know whether he was guilty or not. It could be the charges were dropped because there was no longer any point in punishing him.


It doesn't matter.. not even one little bit. He is not guilty until he is convicted. I'm not sure how much more clearly I can state this but..

He was not convicted, therefore he cannot be considered guilty. When you're not guilty, you're innoncent.

You're innocent until proven guilty.

Therefore, WHY the case was dropped is immaterial to any of these arguments. He is innocent, whether you personally saw him perform the act or not, because he was never convicted, for whatever reason.

That means anyone reading this statement, could have it done to them.. be accused, wrongly or otherwise, and have the tar beaten out of them based on someone's honest, or dishonest claim.

Best part is if it's a minor making the claim.. That means a non-adult can make a COMPLETELY non-verifiable claim which results in incarceration and potentially death, before the matter can even be properly looked at.

Dropped the ball indeed..
 
2009-12-30 03:50:03 PM  
Amberwind: Farkwaddle: Somewhat off-topic here, but I got summoned for jury duty next week. Any creative ideas for being stricken quickly without being too obvious or offensive? I was thinking about asking if public castration was still legal.

/HATE jury duty
//3rd time in 2 yrs
///$10 says they're mostly DUI cases and will plead out

If it's a longer trial (or a trial scheduled on another date), say you can't get permission for the time off work, or that your employer doesn't pay for jury duty, and that you can't afford to pay bills if you're not working. Judges let people off for financial hardship without batting an eye.


Bzzzz. Employers, by law, cannot terminate an employee nor withold earnings while an employee is serving on a jury. Otherwise that would have been an easy way to get out of it as I work for the DoD and everything is considered as mission critical. I get my normal salary, as if I was in the office, plus the $10/day and mileage from the county while I'm sitting in the jury selection room or courtroom.
 
2009-12-30 03:51:05 PM  
A jail, where someone is being held awaiting trial but NOT been convicted, should be a safe, comfortable place. No, I'm not trolling.

Innocent until proven guilty. If you are therefore innocent, by virtue of not yet having been proved guilty, you should not be penalized or put in harm's way. Held to make sure you don't escape justice, or harm someone else while your guilt is being determined? Sure. But there is zero reason for an accused person to be subjected to a living hell like most of our jails are.

If someone gets hurt in a jail, the jailers should be held responsible. If someone is KNOWINGLY put in harm's way while in jail, the jailers should be held criminally liable.

I also have a plan to end the problem of prisons.

Remove body parts instead of giving long prison sentences. Rape? Lose your genitalia. Murder? Have your eyes surgically removed. Repeat violent felon? You die.

Discuss.
 
2009-12-30 03:52:53 PM  
Considering they are labeling people as sex offenders for things like being 18 and having sex with a 17 year old, or for mooning the principal on the last day of school...well, I think the mom may have a case.
 
2009-12-30 03:53:39 PM  
Subby is a knee-jerk douchebag.
 
2009-12-30 03:54:25 PM  
Okay Mister Smartypants: BackAssward:
I guess subby missed the part where he wasn't actually a sex offender... it's ok, almost half the people are below average intelligence (some are average, so you can't say half are below).


The charges were dropped after the beating because he can't stand trial anymore, him being a vegetable.

So he's actually like Schrodinger's Rapist. The state of his guilt or innocence has never actually been established so he's both at once.


Well no, as clever as you think that was... innocent until proven guilty. So his state was always 'not a sex offender' until it was proved to be otherwise.
 
2009-12-30 04:00:00 PM  
A friend of mine had a son who was 16 when he had sex with his 14-year-old girlfriend. He got slapped with rape charges and sexual offender status for the rest of his life, and did four years of hard time in the state pen. He was picked on and beat up unmercifully by the hard-timers who only saw "sex offense" on his record and didn't bother to get any further details. The sex offender system sucks in our country and I hope this mother wins BILLIONS.
 
2009-12-30 04:04:12 PM  
Farkwaddle: Amberwind: Farkwaddle: Somewhat off-topic here, but I got summoned for jury duty next week. Any creative ideas for being stricken quickly without being too obvious or offensive? I was thinking about asking if public castration was still legal.

/HATE jury duty
//3rd time in 2 yrs
///$10 says they're mostly DUI cases and will plead out

If it's a longer trial (or a trial scheduled on another date), say you can't get permission for the time off work, or that your employer doesn't pay for jury duty, and that you can't afford to pay bills if you're not working. Judges let people off for financial hardship without batting an eye.

Bzzzz. Employers, by law, cannot terminate an employee nor withold earnings while an employee is serving on a jury. Otherwise that would have been an easy way to get out of it as I work for the DoD and everything is considered as mission critical. I get my normal salary, as if I was in the office, plus the $10/day and mileage from the county while I'm sitting in the jury selection room or courtroom.


Bzzzz. On the Jury duty forms I filled out, practically the only thing it asks you is whether or not your employer will pay for your time on the Jury. It is up to the discretion of the Employer. If you aren't being paid by your employer, the county will pay $12 a day.. Of course, this depends upon what state you're dealing with.

Just go.. if you've never done it, it's pretty interesting, and typically enlightening, assuming you get selected. If you want out, just answer the final selection questions in an obvious fashion..
ie- "can anyone tell me if this young man is guilty?" and you say: "Absolutely, I am an excellent judge of character, and just by looking at him, I can tell he not only did this act, but that he's prepared to go back out and do it again more... maybe worse next time, and, if selected, it'll be our duty as jurors to ensure this doesn't happen."

It means you'll be there for a bit first, but honestly, I wish I'd been selected when I was there... you just gotta get past a certain time of day before revealing biases to ensure you don't just get dumped back into the selection pool for the rest of the day. In my area it was like 9 am.
 
2009-12-30 04:04:46 PM  
If both are under age, are both sex offenders?
 
2009-12-30 04:06:09 PM  
BackAssward: Okay Mister Smartypants: BackAssward:
I guess subby missed the part where he wasn't actually a sex offender... it's ok, almost half the people are below average intelligence (some are average, so you can't say half are below).


The charges were dropped after the beating because he can't stand trial anymore, him being a vegetable.

So he's actually like Schrodinger's Rapist. The state of his guilt or innocence has never actually been established so he's both at once.

Well no, as clever as you think that was... innocent until proven guilty. So his state was always 'not a sex offender' until it was proved to be otherwise.

Presumed
innocent until proven guilty, that does not mean they are innocent.
 
2009-12-30 04:08:11 PM  
Dead-Guy: Farkwaddle: Amberwind: Farkwaddle: Somewhat off-topic here, but I got summoned for jury duty next week. Any creative ideas for being stricken quickly without being too obvious or offensive? I was thinking about asking if public castration was still legal.

/HATE jury duty
//3rd time in 2 yrs
///$10 says they're mostly DUI cases and will plead out

If it's a longer trial (or a trial scheduled on another date), say you can't get permission for the time off work, or that your employer doesn't pay for jury duty, and that you can't afford to pay bills if you're not working. Judges let people off for financial hardship without batting an eye.

Bzzzz. Employers, by law, cannot terminate an employee nor withold earnings while an employee is serving on a jury. Otherwise that would have been an easy way to get out of it as I work for the DoD and everything is considered as mission critical. I get my normal salary, as if I was in the office, plus the $10/day and mileage from the county while I'm sitting in the jury selection room or courtroom.

Bzzzz. On the Jury duty forms I filled out, practically the only thing it asks you is whether or not your employer will pay for your time on the Jury. It is up to the discretion of the Employer. If you aren't being paid by your employer, the county will pay $12 a day.. Of course, this depends upon what state you're dealing with.

Just go.. if you've never done it, it's pretty interesting, and typically enlightening, assuming you get selected. If you want out, just answer the final selection questions in an obvious fashion..
ie- "can anyone tell me if this young man is guilty?" and you say: "Absolutely, I am an excellent judge of character, and just by looking at him, I can tell he not only did this act, but that he's prepared to go back out and do it again more... maybe worse next time, and, if selected, it'll be our duty as jurors to ensure this doesn't happen."

It means you'll be there for a bit first, but honestly, I wish I'd been selected when I was there... you just gotta get past a certain time of day before revealing biases to ensure you don't just get dumped back into the selection pool for the rest of the day. In my area it was like 9 am.


ahh.. sorry, disregard the suggestions that you might enjoy it.. I missed your slashies :)
 
2009-12-30 04:08:59 PM  
Latinwolf: Day_Old_Dutchie: Merkin Muffley: punto: Merkin Muffley: The punishment is to be locked up, and without freedom, for an amount of time determined at a trial. If you honestly believe the crap you posted, you're a sick fark.

It's not me who believes it, it's you, and the rest of society. what does locking someone up get you? does fix whatever they did wrong? does it give you any assurance that they won't commit a crime again? it doesn't. you just want them punished, and you know that something bad happens to them while they're locked up.

In Britain, I don't think most people expect or want a prisoner to be raped and beaten up. In the US, that seems to be different and according to you should be expected. Taking away someone's freedom for ten years seems pretty harsh to me without the violence and rape. We shouldn't need US organisations trying to legislate away prison rape, they shouldn't even have to exist, but they do.

What we've got going now is a system that doesn't correct anything and turns out people worse than when they went in, and precludes them from ever really having a job other than auto mechanic. So don't tell me it's what I believe, you're the one telling me we should all expect and applaud prisoners being beaten up and raped in addition to the prison term, since apparently the term itself is a cakewalk.

It's apparently not a justice system. It's a "revenge" system.
Unfortunately the proponents of this "revenge-based" system get votes (especially from the older citizens with cement for brains and others with limited critical-thinking abilities).

Pandering politicians with no scruples are the real reasons for this.

As to those slimy politicking Crown Prosecutors here in Canada, here are a few of their victims...

Donald Marshall, Jr., Steven Truscott, Susanh Nelles, Robert Baltovich, David Milgaard, Guy Paul Morin, James Driskell, Bill Mullins-Johnson

So you're claiming that there are no criminals who deserved to be locked up, that they should just run around free.


Hold on there sparky, where did you get that idea? Neither of us suggested that. I don't want the criminals running around free, but it shouldn't be considered normal or part of their punishment to face violence and rape everyday they are locked up. Criminals or not that is wrong.
 
2009-12-30 04:09:09 PM  
jst3p: BackAssward: Okay Mister Smartypants: BackAssward:
I guess subby missed the part where he wasn't actually a sex offender... it's ok, almost half the people are below average intelligence (some are average, so you can't say half are below).


The charges were dropped after the beating because he can't stand trial anymore, him being a vegetable.

So he's actually like Schrodinger's Rapist. The state of his guilt or innocence has never actually been established so he's both at once.

Well no, as clever as you think that was... innocent until proven guilty. So his state was always 'not a sex offender' until it was proved to be otherwise.

Presumed innocent until proven guilty, that does not mean they are innocent.


And subby called him a sex offender, which is presuming guilt. Exactly the opposite of of your post and my point. Let's not get into semantics.
 
2009-12-30 04:09:59 PM  
Occam's Nailfile: Remove body parts instead of giving long prison sentences. Rape? Lose your genitalia. Murder? Have your eyes surgically removed. Repeat violent felon? You die.

Counter-argument: wrongful conviction.

I just don't see why prisoners get to interact with each other in prison. Give them a cot, a treadmill, a shower, a shiatter, and a terminal that only contains educational content. Slide meals through a slot in the door. Open the door when the sentence is over.
 
2009-12-30 04:10:57 PM  
BackAssward: jst3p: BackAssward: Okay Mister Smartypants: BackAssward:
I guess subby missed the part where he wasn't actually a sex offender... it's ok, almost half the people are below average intelligence (some are average, so you can't say half are below).


The charges were dropped after the beating because he can't stand trial anymore, him being a vegetable.

So he's actually like Schrodinger's Rapist. The state of his guilt or innocence has never actually been established so he's both at once.

Well no, as clever as you think that was... innocent until proven guilty. So his state was always 'not a sex offender' until it was proved to be otherwise.

Presumed innocent until proven guilty, that does not mean they are innocent.

And subby called him a sex offender, which is presuming guilt. Exactly the opposite of of your post and my point. Let's not get into semantics.


The court must presume him to be innocent, subby is free to presume whatever the hell he wants.
 
2009-12-30 04:12:32 PM  
jst3p: BackAssward: jst3p: BackAssward: Okay Mister Smartypants: BackAssward:
I guess subby missed the part where he wasn't actually a sex offender... it's ok, almost half the people are below average intelligence (some are average, so you can't say half are below).


The charges were dropped after the beating because he can't stand trial anymore, him being a vegetable.

So he's actually like Schrodinger's Rapist. The state of his guilt or innocence has never actually been established so he's both at once.

Well no, as clever as you think that was... innocent until proven guilty. So his state was always 'not a sex offender' until it was proved to be otherwise.

Presumed innocent until proven guilty, that does not mean they are innocent.

And subby called him a sex offender, which is presuming guilt. Exactly the opposite of of your post and my point. Let's not get into semantics.

The court must presume him to be innocent, subby is free to presume whatever the hell he wants.


Sure, if he wants to make unproven assumptions, and look like an assuming ass... and I am free to point that out.
 
2009-12-30 04:14:39 PM  
BackAssward: jst3p: BackAssward: jst3p: BackAssward: Okay Mister Smartypants: BackAssward:
I guess subby missed the part where he wasn't actually a sex offender... it's ok, almost half the people are below average intelligence (some are average, so you can't say half are below).


The charges were dropped after the beating because he can't stand trial anymore, him being a vegetable.

So he's actually like Schrodinger's Rapist. The state of his guilt or innocence has never actually been established so he's both at once.

Well no, as clever as you think that was... innocent until proven guilty. So his state was always 'not a sex offender' until it was proved to be otherwise.

Presumed innocent until proven guilty, that does not mean they are innocent.

And subby called him a sex offender, which is presuming guilt. Exactly the opposite of of your post and my point. Let's not get into semantics.

The court must presume him to be innocent, subby is free to presume whatever the hell he wants.

Sure, if he wants to make unproven assumptions, and look like an assuming ass... and I am free to point that out.


The fact of the matter is that the guy is in fact either innocent or guilty. Your assumption that he isn't guilty is just as valid or invalid as assuming he is guilty.
 
2009-12-30 04:15:10 PM  
Not An Alt: cryinoutloud: Came in here to snark, but I'm afraid the jail dropped the ball on this one. This guy not only had his life ruined, he's never even going to be aware of it.

OH give me a break, the accuser probably dropped the charges after the story got out about him getting beat. No need to send him to prison now, he just got some REAL justice.


And the award of Idiotic Asshole Of The Year goes to ...

NOT AN ALT

Congratulations douchebag, you earned it!
 
2009-12-30 04:15:28 PM  
Merkin Muffley: Taking away someone's freedom for ten years seems pretty harsh to me without the violence and rape.

and where do you get the "10 years" from? do you just like the number ten? my point is, the entire thing is based on the idea of being sent to your room when you do something naughty. we don't know how to reform the criminals, we don't know how much time it takes to reform them, we don't know if jail has any effect on them not committing a crime in the future. so what's the point? we don't know if "taking someone's freedom" makes any differences at all. the language on most laws around the world says that jails are supposed to be healthy and clean, and prisoners are supposed to be treated nicely. so why would anyone be ok with sending criminals to jail? the answer is because they know they are punished in jail, but they don't want to be bothered with the details.
 
2009-12-30 04:19:12 PM  
jst3p: Presumed innocent until proven guilty, that does not mean they are innocent

LOL

What do you think it means then? "Presumed innocent" means you are legally considered innocent of a crime until it can be proven that you committed the crime.

In Canada, section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: "Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal".

If you don't prove the person legally guilty, they are legally innocent. This is due to the possibility of statutory exemptions or other mitigating circumstances, such as insanity.

Holding someone in jail prior to their conviction is the holding of a someone who is ACCUSED, but not guilty of a crime at that time.
 
2009-12-30 04:19:25 PM  
Occam's Nailfile: I also have a plan to end the problem of prisons.

Remove body parts instead of giving long prison sentences. Rape? Lose your genitalia. Murder? Have your eyes surgically removed. Repeat violent felon? You die.

Discuss.


Only if you killed using your heat-vision.
 
2009-12-30 04:19:49 PM  
jst3p: BackAssward: jst3p: BackAssward: jst3p: BackAssward: Okay Mister Smartypants: BackAssward:
I guess subby missed the part where he wasn't actually a sex offender... it's ok, almost half the people are below average intelligence (some are average, so you can't say half are below).


The charges were dropped after the beating because he can't stand trial anymore, him being a vegetable.

So he's actually like Schrodinger's Rapist. The state of his guilt or innocence has never actually been established so he's both at once.

Well no, as clever as you think that was... innocent until proven guilty. So his state was always 'not a sex offender' until it was proved to be otherwise.

Presumed innocent until proven guilty, that does not mean they are innocent.

And subby called him a sex offender, which is presuming guilt. Exactly the opposite of of your post and my point. Let's not get into semantics.

The court must presume him to be innocent, subby is free to presume whatever the hell he wants.

Sure, if he wants to make unproven assumptions, and look like an assuming ass... and I am free to point that out.

The fact of the matter is that the guy is in fact either innocent or guilty. Your assumption that he isn't guilty is just as valid or invalid as assuming he is guilty.


I don't assume he isn't guilty, I have no idea... but we as a society agree that guilt must be proven, not the other way around. So the only socially acceptable stance is innocent until not innocent. We live by rule and law, and this is a fundamental point. Period.
 
2009-12-30 04:22:22 PM  
Dead-Guy: jst3p: Presumed innocent until proven guilty, that does not mean they are innocent

LOL

What do you think it means then? "Presumed innocent" means you are legally considered innocent of a crime until it can be proven that you committed the crime.


Legally, sure. But the court is held to a higher standard than someone linking a news story on a site whose mascot is a squirrel with an oversized nutsack.


If you don't prove the person legally guilty, they are legally innocent.

I am not a lawyer but I am pretty sure no court ever finds someone to be innocent. They find them guilty or not guilty. It is an important distinction.
 
2009-12-30 04:23:49 PM  
BackAssward: I don't assume he isn't guilty, I have no idea... but we as a society agree that guilt must be proven, not the other way around. So the only socially acceptable stance is innocent until not innocent. We live by rule and law, and this is a fundamental point. Period.

Says you. I am not saying punish him, but I am not going to get butthurt if some random guy on the internet wants to assume he is guilty.
 
2009-12-30 04:25:06 PM  
jst3p: They find them guilty or not guilty. It is an important distinction

wish we did that ALL the time
but its freaking important (as you said) to do it now, then, and in future

// has a lot to do with prosecuting this particular crime area
/ get sick of people who do not understand what you just said
 
2009-12-30 04:30:50 PM  
jst3p:
The fact of the matter is that the guy is in fact either innocent or guilty. Your assumption that he isn't guilty is just as valid or invalid as assuming he is guilty.


Holy fark, just man up and admit you are wrong instead of these pedantic logic games that make you look like a simpering twat. The only place where guilt or innocence matters is a court of law. The court of law with jurisdiction over this matter has found this person innocent. As much as you'd like someone to have been raped so you can be right on a farking internet message board, the courts have determined you're a farking idiot and you're wrong. Please, get the fark over it.
 
2009-12-30 04:35:40 PM  
He was an accused, not convicted sex offender and the charges were later dropped.

This is a perfectly legitimate lawsuit.
 
2009-12-30 04:37:13 PM  
jst3p: Dead-Guy: jst3p: Presumed innocent until proven guilty, that does not mean they are innocent

LOL

What do you think it means then? "Presumed innocent" means you are legally considered innocent of a crime until it can be proven that you committed the crime.

Legally, sure. But the court is held to a higher standard than someone linking a news story on a site whose mascot is a squirrel with an oversized nutsack.


If you don't prove the person legally guilty, they are legally innocent.

I am not a lawyer but I am pretty sure no court ever finds someone to be innocent. They find them guilty or not guilty. It is an important distinction.


You've forgotten the point. This "innocent until proven guilty" thing was in regards to the fact an innocent man was beaten severely.

Whether YOU choose to add the words "legally" or not doesn't dismiss the fact that this is still a very viable lawsuit because the person was legally innocent.

I totally agree that there's a good chance he did what he was accused of, but that's not even remotely the issue here. You can't permit this kind of treatment to convicted sex offenders, and to permit it with innocent people who have merely been ACCUSED of an offense is worse.

His actual guilt is immaterial to how he was handled at a time he was deemed to be legally innocent.

He'd only been accused.. like if I formally accused you of being a sex offender, it's ok to throw you in jail and knowlingly permit you enter general population where it is likely you'll get beaten on a regular basis?

That doesn't seem awkward at all to you?
 
2009-12-30 04:37:36 PM  
Bender The Offender: jst3p:
The fact of the matter is that the guy is in fact either innocent or guilty. Your assumption that he isn't guilty is just as valid or invalid as assuming he is guilty.

Holy fark, just man up and admit you are wrong instead of these pedantic logic games that make you look like a simpering twat. The only place where guilt or innocence matters is a court of law. The court of law with jurisdiction over this matter has found this person innocent. As much as you'd like someone to have been raped so you can be right on a farking internet message board, the courts have determined you're a farking idiot and you're wrong. Please, get the fark over it.


What exactly am I wrong about? I never said he was guilty. I am just saying that courts are held to the standard of presuming someone innocent until proven guilty. Subby isn't. Having a rough day?
 
2009-12-30 04:39:32 PM  
Dead-Guy: I totally agree that there's a good chance he did what he was accused of, but that's not even remotely the issue here. You can't permit this kind of treatment to convicted sex offenders, and to permit it with innocent people who have merely been ACCUSED of an offense is worse

I agree with you here and I am not saying that what happens to him was justified.
 
2009-12-30 04:41:03 PM  
Bender The Offender: The court of law with jurisdiction over this matter has found this person innocent.


And again, no they didn't.
 
2009-12-30 04:45:27 PM  
jst3p: Bender The Offender: jst3p:
The fact of the matter is that the guy is in fact either innocent or guilty. Your assumption that he isn't guilty is just as valid or invalid as assuming he is guilty.

Holy fark, just man up and admit you are wrong instead of these pedantic logic games that make you look like a simpering twat. The only place where guilt or innocence matters is a court of law. The court of law with jurisdiction over this matter has found this person innocent. As much as you'd like someone to have been raped so you can be right on a farking internet message board, the courts have determined you're a farking idiot and you're wrong. Please, get the fark over it.

What exactly am I wrong about? I never said he was guilty. I am just saying that courts are held to the standard of presuming someone innocent until proven guilty. Subby isn't. Having a rough day?


lol.. you're arguing against the wrong folks.. no offense man, but some of these folks (myself included) weren't having a problem with some internet guy calling someone guilty.

You responded on their threads where they were trying to point out that an "accused" person, guilty or not, can't be treated as a guilty person by knowingly sticking them in harms way.

It's not the same argument, but you're responding to everyone's comments like it is, because both arguments are using the bit about "innocent until proven guilty."

Just a misunderstanding I guess.
 
2009-12-30 04:48:25 PM  
Alleged Sex Offender Beaten to a Vegetable

To read the rest of the article, click on the tot's crotch
 
2009-12-30 04:59:32 PM  
jst3p: BackAssward: Okay Mister Smartypants: BackAssward:
I guess subby missed the part where he wasn't actually a sex offender... it's ok, almost half the people are below average intelligence (some are average, so you can't say half are below).


The charges were dropped after the beating because he can't stand trial anymore, him being a vegetable.

So he's actually like Schrodinger's Rapist. The state of his guilt or innocence has never actually been established so he's both at once.

Well no, as clever as you think that was... innocent until proven guilty. So his state was always 'not a sex offender' until it was proved to be otherwise.

Presumed innocent until proven guilty, that does not mean they are innocent.


Hey he was found innocent in criminal court after being accused of murdering a white girl.
scrapetv.com
 
2009-12-30 04:59:48 PM  
eraser8: Slartibartfaster: Before the "states" were united, they were states too.
America did not invent the word

(ditto on democracy, freedom, english, pizza, facism..... we just improved those)

Really?


Yes. Really.
 
2009-12-30 05:02:33 PM  
Latinwolf: Hey he was found innocent in criminal court after being accused of murdering a white girl.


No he wasn't. As I said before he was found not guilty. It is an important distinction.
 
2009-12-30 05:08:30 PM  
Merkin Muffley: Latinwolf: Day_Old_Dutchie: Merkin Muffley: punto: Merkin Muffley: The punishment is to be locked up, and without freedom, for an amount of time determined at a trial. If you honestly believe the crap you posted, you're a sick fark.

It's not me who believes it, it's you, and the rest of society. what does locking someone up get you? does fix whatever they did wrong? does it give you any assurance that they won't commit a crime again? it doesn't. you just want them punished, and you know that something bad happens to them while they're locked up.

In Britain, I don't think most people expect or want a prisoner to be raped and beaten up. In the US, that seems to be different and according to you should be expected. Taking away someone's freedom for ten years seems pretty harsh to me without the violence and rape. We shouldn't need US organisations trying to legislate away prison rape, they shouldn't even have to exist, but they do.

What we've got going now is a system that doesn't correct anything and turns out people worse than when they went in, and precludes them from ever really having a job other than auto mechanic. So don't tell me it's what I believe, you're the one telling me we should all expect and applaud prisoners being beaten up and raped in addition to the prison term, since apparently the term itself is a cakewalk.

It's apparently not a justice system. It's a "revenge" system.
Unfortunately the proponents of this "revenge-based" system get votes (especially from the older citizens with cement for brains and others with limited critical-thinking abilities).

Pandering politicians with no scruples are the real reasons for this.

As to those slimy politicking Crown Prosecutors here in Canada, here are a few of their victims...

Donald Marshall, Jr., Steven Truscott, Susanh Nelles, Robert Baltovich, David Milgaard, Guy Paul Morin, James Driskell, Bill Mullins-Johnson

So you're claiming that there are no criminals who deserved to be locked up, that they should just run around free.

Hold on there sparky, where did you get that idea? Neither of us suggested that. I don't want the criminals running around free, but it shouldn't be considered normal or part of their punishment to face violence and rape everyday they are locked up. Criminals or not that is wrong.


You implied it with this comment:
It's apparently not a justice system. It's a "revenge" system.

And I'm more concerned with the well being of the victims of those perps rather than the well being of the perps themselves.
 
2009-12-30 05:13:53 PM  
DrRatchet: system of justice, it is not the government, but only the people, who may punish criminals. Punishments are decided by Juries, not judges or corrections officers or the police. This is a fundamental building block of our civilization.

Wait, this was in Canada? Carry on...


Sentences are decided by judges in America, guilt is occasionally decided by juries. You probably want to get youe GED in law before you attmept to discuss this topic again.
 
2009-12-30 05:16:07 PM  
Latinwolf: And I'm more concerned with the well being of the victims of those perps rather than the well being of the perps themselves

Thats why we have a justice system
to protect "perps" from you until it is proven beyond all reasonable doubt
(yea, it totally farked up in this situation, and does that often - needs fixing, Im trying, you ?)
 
2009-12-30 05:16:08 PM  
Dead-Guy: Farkwaddle: Amberwind: Farkwaddle: Somewhat off-topic here, but I got summoned for jury duty next week. Any creative ideas for being stricken quickly without being too obvious or offensive? I was thinking about asking if public castration was still legal.

/HATE jury duty
//3rd time in 2 yrs
///$10 says they're mostly DUI cases and will plead out

If it's a longer trial (or a trial scheduled on another date), say you can't get permission for the time off work, or that your employer doesn't pay for jury duty, and that you can't afford to pay bills if you're not working. Judges let people off for financial hardship without batting an eye.

Bzzzz. Employers, by law, cannot terminate an employee nor withold earnings while an employee is serving on a jury. Otherwise that would have been an easy way to get out of it as I work for the DoD and everything is considered as mission critical. I get my normal salary, as if I was in the office, plus the $10/day and mileage from the county while I'm sitting in the jury selection room or courtroom.

Bzzzz. On the Jury duty forms I filled out, practically the only thing it asks you is whether or not your employer will pay for your time on the Jury. It is up to the discretion of the Employer. If you aren't being paid by your employer, the county will pay $12 a day.. Of course, this depends upon what state you're dealing with.

Just go.. if you've never done it, it's pretty interesting, and typically enlightening, assuming you get selected. If you want out, just answer the final selection questions in an obvious fashion..
ie- "can anyone tell me if this young man is guilty?" and you say: "Absolutely, I am an excellent judge of character, and just by looking at him, I can tell he not only did this act, but that he's prepared to go back out and do it again more... maybe worse next time, and, if selected, it'll be our duty as jurors to ensure this doesn't happen."

It means you'll be there for a bit first, but honestly, I wish I'd been selected when I was there... you just gotta get past a certain time of day before revealing biases to ensure you don't just get dumped back into the selection pool for the rest of the day. In my area it was like 9 am.


Nah - why say that, when you can instead say "Your honor, it is my duty to inform you that I believe in a fully informed jury and my right as a citizen to jury nullification."

You will dismissed, and possibly every other potential juror in that room will be dismissed as well. The court will likely be pretty pissed, but it is everyone's right as citizens of this country. Furthermore, it is doubtful as to whether you will -ever- be called back to serve.
 
2009-12-30 05:19:13 PM  
cr0sh: Nah - why say that, when you can instead say "Your honor, it is my duty to inform you that I believe in a fully informed jury and my right as a citizen to jury nullification."

You will dismissed, and possibly every other potential juror in that room will be dismissed as well. The court will likely be pretty pissed, but it is everyone's right as citizens of this country. Furthermore, it is doubtful as to whether you will -ever- be called back to serve.



Really?
 
2009-12-30 05:19:21 PM  
jst3p: No he wasn't. As I said before he was found not guilty. It is an important distinction

INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY

apparently this presumption is outside of your grip ?

NOT GUILTY=INNOCENT (by the legal definition)

(that is the presumption of the court)

is this really so farking hard for you ?

If the court declares not guilty (as they do) then the presumption is innocent
asshole
 
2009-12-30 05:19:49 PM  
jst3p: Latinwolf: Hey he was found innocent in criminal court after being accused of murdering a white girl.


No he wasn't. As I said before he was found not guilty. It is an important distinction.


I stand corrected but my point is that he was never found guilty, same as the vegetable in the story who never had a trial because charges were dropped. It can't be claimed that he was innocent as some posters in here are claiming because he never had a trial to prove it one way or another. Charges can get dropped because of a lack of evidence, even if a person could be guilty. Charges can get dropped because a person may not be competent enough to stand trial, which certainly applies in this case, not because it's certain that a person could be innocent of the charges.
 
2009-12-30 05:23:15 PM  
Latinwolf: I stand corrected but my point is that he was never found guilty

so the presumption is innocent
(until proven otherwise)
 
2009-12-30 05:24:25 PM  
Latinwolf: It can't be claimed that he was innocent as some posters in here are claiming because he never had a trial

pics.livejournal.com
 
2009-12-30 05:24:49 PM  
Slartibartfaster: jst3p: No he wasn't. As I said before he was found not guilty. It is an important distinction

INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY

apparently this presumption is outside of your grip ?

NOT GUILTY=INNOCENT (by the legal definition)

(that is the presumption of the court)

is this really so farking hard for you ?

If the court declares not guilty (as they do) then the presumption is innocent
asshole


No, the court found that there was not enough evidence to declare guilty. The court will never declare you innocent. I used to believe that "not guilty" and "innocent" were the same thing too. A friend of mine who works in the AGs office convinced me otherwise.

But put very simply, it is "We the jury find the defendant not guilty" not "We the jury find the defendant innocent". There is a difference and it does matter, at least legally.
 
2009-12-30 05:26:01 PM  
Slartibartfaster: Latinwolf: And I'm more concerned with the well being of the victims of those perps rather than the well being of the perps themselves

Thats why we have a justice system
to protect "perps" from you until it is proven beyond all reasonable doubt
(yea, it totally farked up in this situation, and does that often - needs fixing, Im trying, you ?)


You sound like an ex-con since I never said anything about forming a lynch mob as you're implying with your protect the perps comment.
 
2009-12-30 05:27:12 PM  
jst3p: No, the court found that there was not enough evidence to declare guilty. The court will never declare you innocent

last I checked, you are innocent UNTIL they declare you guilty, thats the understanding I have
apparently you have a different understanding
 
2009-12-30 05:29:02 PM  
Latinwolf: You sound like an ex-con

since I never said anything about forming a lynch mob


nor did I

as you're implying with your protect the perps comment

Protect the innocent, and assume innocence until proven

.... yea, they wrote that.
 
2009-12-30 05:30:48 PM  
Latinwolf: protect the perps

Hang the perp HIGH

(I get sick of putting effort into busting these shiatheads only to have them released)

but prove it first

Assumption is innocence, not "not guilty" it is an important distinction. (to borrow jst3p's words)
 
2009-12-30 05:31:28 PM  
Slartibartfaster: jst3p: No, the court found that there was not enough evidence to declare guilty. The court will never declare you innocent

last I checked, you are innocent UNTIL they declare you guilty, thats the understanding I have
apparently you have a different understanding


Being presumed innocent and being innocent are two different things, but based on past discussions I generally find you to be pretty thick headed and overly combative so I am not going to waste too much time explaining why it is important. I will let one of the fark lawyers do it if they feel so inclined.
 
2009-12-30 05:38:44 PM  
jst3p: Being presumed innocent and being innocent are two different things

until you prove it, they are innocent, THAT is what the justice system is for (with all its faults)

jst3p: I generally find you to be pretty thick headed and overly combative

YOU were arguing the point shiathead, and were wrong

jst3p: waste too much time explaining why it is important

Some smarter people that you and I drew up the rules... were they wrong ?

Innocent until proven guilty
THAT is the presumption

jst3p: I will let one of the fark lawyers do it if they feel so inclined

I think a few lawyers have tried this one
and other people have taken your track

guess who wins ?

Magna Carta for the win ? Or Jst3p.... one of these things is not like the other
 
2009-12-30 05:44:54 PM  
Slartibartfaster: jst3p: Being presumed innocent and being innocent are two different things

until you prove it, they are innocent, THAT is what the justice system is for (with all its faults)



If they didn't commit the crime they are innocent. The justice system never determines that someone is innocent. Being presumed innocent and being innocent are two different things.
 
2009-12-30 05:47:57 PM  
jst3p: Being presumed innocent and being innocent are two different things.

Yea, until you jail someone as a child molester and have his head kicked in

its a pretty farking important assumption (this case is a demonstration)

you are LEGALLY innocent (as opposed to "not guilty")

The justice system is obliged to honor that
(for all its faults, and with all its faults, the ruleset still stands even if THEY ignore it)
 
2009-12-30 05:52:41 PM  
Slartibartfaster: you are LEGALLY innocent (as opposed to "not guilty")


It is my understanding there is no such thing as "legally innocent". You are guilty or not guilty.
 
2009-12-30 05:54:06 PM  
jst3p: You are guilty or not guilty

really ?

I went with that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing

I guess I read that differently
 
2009-12-30 05:55:27 PM  
Slartibartfaster: jst3p: You are guilty or not guilty

really ?

I went with that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing

I guess I read that differently

Presumed
innocent... it is an important part of that phrase.
 
2009-12-30 05:56:56 PM  
Slartibartfaster: jst3p: You are guilty or not guilty

really ?

I went with that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing

I guess I read that differently


WTF were you thinking? Our whole legal system's foundation may be based on that presumption, but that's meaningless in the face of someone trying to win an argument on the internet.
 
2009-12-30 05:57:23 PM  
Slartibartfaster: Latinwolf: protect the perps

Hang the perp HIGH

(I get sick of putting effort into busting these shiatheads only to have them released)

but prove it first

Assumption is innocence, not "not guilty" it is an important distinction. (to borrow jst3p's words)


Under your criteria O.J. Simpson is innocent of murdering a white lady.
 
rp.
2009-12-30 05:57:43 PM  
Since he was innocent of being a sex offender, there was no reason not to keep him in general population.
 
2009-12-30 05:58:11 PM  
Latinwolf: Slartibartfaster: Latinwolf: protect the perps

Hang the perp HIGH

(I get sick of putting effort into busting these shiatheads only to have them released)

but prove it first

Assumption is innocence, not "not guilty" it is an important distinction. (to borrow jst3p's words)

Under your criteria O.J. Simpson is innocent of murdering a white lady.


Bingo. He is not guilty but everyone knows he isn't innocent.
 
2009-12-30 06:03:20 PM  
Latinwolf: Under your criteria O.J. Simpson is innocent of murdering a white lady

legally yea (innocent)

civilly not so much
 
2009-12-30 06:05:18 PM  
Bender The Offender: WTF were you thinking? Our whole legal system's foundation may be based on that presumption, but that's meaningless in the face of someone trying to win an argument on the internet.

2.bp.blogspot.com

thanks for the giggle
 
2009-12-30 06:07:33 PM  
Latinwolf: Under your criteria

preponderance of evidence (new window)

have fun (I didn't but I had to learn that, and Quebecois - that was more fun)
 
rp.
2009-12-30 06:07:45 PM  
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

11(b): Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.

So, if you are not charged with an offence, you do not have a right to be presumed innocent.
 
rp.
2009-12-30 06:08:21 PM  
aaaaaaaaaaaaaand of course I meant 11(d).
 
2009-12-30 06:17:17 PM  
rp.: Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven

apparently it also applies to the charged people too
 
2009-12-30 06:22:36 PM  
rp.: So, if you are not charged with an offence, you do not have a right to be presumed innocent

heheh oops

now I see what you meant

ya, cool find
 
2009-12-30 06:23:35 PM  
I love all the analytical "guilty until proven innocent" bullshiat. We all know that if it was your snowflake who accused this guy of sexual assault (That's what he was accused of, BTW. TFA doesn't say he was an "alleged sex offender", it says he was accused of sexual assault so all the "He pee'd on a wall" arguments can STFU) he'd be a guilty Mother farker! And even if he was later proven not guilty, you'd still find a reason to drive by his house every so often, if for nothing else than to mean mug him, cuz afterall, there just had to be a reason she pointed the finger at him, right?

And since we're all forming assumptions based on the (lack of) information in TFA, why not jump to one or two more conclusions?

FTFA: "Cook claims the inmate who attacked her son has a "propensity for assault and battery, in particular of his animosity toward sexual offenders and, in particular, towards Tanner."

Wow! So maybe, just maybe, Douchebag #1 didn't like Douchebag #2, not cuz of anything he did or didn't do, but because he was...well...a douchebag.

FTFA: "Cook claims the inmate who attacked her son has a "propensity for assault and battery, in particular of his animosity toward sexual offenders and, in particular, towards Tanner."

Many posters have already covered this one, but I thought I'd bring it up again.

FTFA: "Cook claims the inmate who attacked her son has a "propensity for assault and battery, in particular of his animosity toward sexual offenders and, in particular, towards Tanner."

Hmmm, maybe the person Douchebag #2 allegedly sexually assaulted was the sister or female snowflake of Douchebag #1!

What's my point, you ask? I don't farking know, but I'll bet there's one in there somewhere!

Bottom line, jails, prisons, holding cells, etc are bad places where bad and not-so-bad people go. And sometimes, bad things happen to those bad and not-so-bad people. Wanna avoid it? Don't farking do bad stuff! Avoid having the type of people in your life who would falsely accuse you of doing bad stuff out of spite. I know it's tough, crazy chicks are teh AWESOME in the sack, but try anyways.

/Cool story, bro!
//Now STFU and GTFO!
 
2009-12-30 06:23:51 PM  
I guess it comes down to the definition of "charged" now

punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com
 
2009-12-30 06:26:39 PM  
maelstrom0370: it says he was accused of sexual assault so all the "He pee'd on a wall" arguments can STFU) he'd be a guilty Mother farker

trolling should not AIM to be godwinned ... no really

1/10 (sometimes being generous makes the retarded feel better, apparently)

maelstrom0370: //Now STFU and GTFO!
 
2009-12-30 06:27:19 PM  
Man Going His Own Way: From the Article: Nicholas Tanner was arrested in August 2008 on a sexual assault allegation and ordered held in custody at the provincial facility while awaiting trial. The charge has since been dropped.

Translation: He pissed off a girlfriend by not caving in to her whim.


Alternate translation: Since he's a drooling vegetable the prosecutor decided to take a pass on this particular trial, seeing as how the jury and/or media might get side-tracked on that whole "beaten into brain damage due to police negligence" issue.
 
2009-12-30 06:30:23 PM  
ZeroPly: Since he's a drooling vegetable the prosecutor decided to take a pass on this particular trial

yea, they do that.... sure, too easy
cuz prosecutors are merciful (and their industry in no way benefits from increased traffic)
 
2009-12-30 06:41:33 PM  
Slartibartfaster: maelstrom0370: it says he was accused of sexual assault so all the "He pee'd on a wall" arguments can STFU) he'd be a guilty Mother farker

trolling should not AIM to be godwinned ... no really

1/10 (sometimes being generous makes the retarded feel better, apparently)

maelstrom0370: //Now STFU and GTFO!


And attempting to call me out as a troll should...I dunno...make sense?
 
2009-12-30 06:43:54 PM  
maelstrom0370: attempting

?
 
CMP
2009-12-30 06:43:55 PM  
Headingley is the Manitoba provincial jail where in general criminals sentenced to terms of less than two years are sent. The federal prison is Stony Mountain where longer terms are served. In the city of Winnipeg is the Provincial Remand Centre where accused persons are supposed to held awaiting trial. There is chronic overcrowding in the remand centre, so the only reason I can see that Tanner would have been at Headingley at all is that there was no room in Winnipeg. The majority of the inmate population in both provincial and federal prisons in Manitoba is of an exceptionally savage sort, and there have been some very nasty riots at both prisons in the past. The minions of the justice department had no business exposing a merely accused individual to them, unless they thought it was "OK" because of the sexual allegations.
As more than a few have noted: alleged, accused, presumption of innocence, charges dropped
Hardly a "precious snowflake," but I think the mother has a case, and frankly the justice department in this province needs a comeuppance.
 
rp.
2009-12-30 06:46:14 PM  
I think this may have been pointed out, but the pleadings indicate that he was an actual sex offender.
 
2009-12-30 06:47:57 PM  
rp.: he was

I think the system excludes that too
(not the greatest system, needs improvement, but .... the previous ones sucked more)
 
2009-12-30 06:50:57 PM  
Slartibartfaster: maelstrom0370: attempting

?


WOW! Just...Wow. Now how could I possibly compete with such a well thought out and literate argument? You, sir, are teh winnar and I bow to both your superior intellect and the veracity of your argument. In fact, I....wait...shiat! I fell for it, didn't I?

Kudos, sir. Your troll-fu is superior to mine.
 
2009-12-30 06:54:33 PM  
maelstrom0370: Now how could I possibly compete with such a well thought out and literate argument?

... I quoted you, and made it a question (is it really required to type WTF now ?)

sorry if that was too complicated

I didn't ATTEMPT to do anything there buckaroo
 
rp.
2009-12-30 06:55:36 PM  
One account I read of this said the man himself was suing (I'm guessing through his mother as a litigation guardian). I'm guessing an admission from one's own lawyer describing one as a sex offender should be enough for others to practically find someone in their own judgment, if not in law, to be one. And, as I stated, he's not charged anymore, so presume away, if that happens to make anyone feel better. (Note: not all of this is presented with much seriousness)
 
2009-12-30 06:57:18 PM  
rp.: Note: not all of this is presented with much seriousness

its fun to have fun :-)
 
2009-12-30 07:01:41 PM  
Damnitalltohell! I hate it when my ability to type surpasses my ability to think!!! I got caught up in the "sex offender=child molester" mentality of some of the earlier posts. Now that my brain has once again assumed control, I see what I did there.

My apologies, Slartibartfaster. (Where the fark do some people come up with their names!?)

Other than that, my original opinion stands.
 
rp.
2009-12-30 07:05:56 PM  
Day_Old_Dutchie: As to those slimy politicking Crown Prosecutors here in Canada, here are a few of their victims...

Can you explain this line to me please, especially the part about politicking?
 
2009-12-30 07:07:46 PM  
maelstrom0370: Where the fark do some people come up with their names!

Slartibartfast was taken

Douglas Adamshiatch Hikers guide to the galaxy
(Im a reader, sometimes I love pulp sci fi, that is one of my favorites)

// I made all the fjords
 
2009-12-30 07:09:09 PM  
Slartibartfaster: Adamshiatch

weird filter there hehehe

www.bbc.co.uk
 
2009-12-30 07:17:06 PM  
Latinwolf: Merkin Muffley: Latinwolf: Day_Old_Dutchie: Merkin Muffley: punto: Merkin Muffley: The punishment is to be locked up, and without freedom, for an amount of time determined at a trial. If you honestly believe the crap you posted, you're a sick fark.

It's not me who believes it, it's you, and the rest of society. what does locking someone up get you? does fix whatever they did wrong? does it give you any assurance that they won't commit a crime again? it doesn't. you just want them punished, and you know that something bad happens to them while they're locked up.

In Britain, I don't think most people expect or want a prisoner to be raped and beaten up. In the US, that seems to be different and according to you should be expected. Taking away someone's freedom for ten years seems pretty harsh to me without the violence and rape. We shouldn't need US organisations trying to legislate away prison rape, they shouldn't even have to exist, but they do.

What we've got going now is a system that doesn't correct anything and turns out people worse than when they went in, and precludes them from ever really having a job other than auto mechanic. So don't tell me it's what I believe, you're the one telling me we should all expect and applaud prisoners being beaten up and raped in addition to the prison term, since apparently the term itself is a cakewalk.

It's apparently not a justice system. It's a "revenge" system.
Unfortunately the proponents of this "revenge-based" system get votes (especially from the older citizens with cement for brains and others with limited critical-thinking abilities).

Pandering politicians with no scruples are the real reasons for this.

As to those slimy politicking Crown Prosecutors here in Canada, here are a few of their victims...

Donald Marshall, Jr., Steven Truscott, Susanh Nelles, Robert Baltovich, David Milgaard, Guy Paul Morin, James Driskell, Bill Mullins-Johnson

So you're claiming that there are no criminals who deserved to be locked up, that they should just run around free.

Hold on there sparky, where did you get that idea? Neither of us suggested that. I don't want the criminals running around free, but it shouldn't be considered normal or part of their punishment to face violence and rape everyday they are locked up. Criminals or not that is wrong.

You implied it with this comment:
It's apparently not a justice system. It's a "revenge" system.


And I'm more concerned with the well being of the victims of those perps rather than the well being of the perps themselves.



First, I'm not the one that said it was a revenge system, that was Day_Old_Dutchie.

Second, how the hell does that imply: "So you're claiming that there are no criminals who deserved to be locked up, that they should just run around free." ?

What a silly thing to ask, Some people clearly shouldn't be running free, who the hell was arguing otherwise? I surely wasn't.
 
2009-12-30 07:20:16 PM  
Slartibartfaster: Slartibartfaster:

Just checked your profile, and, I gotta say, I like about 99% of the cut of your jib.

Once again, my apologies for going all Internet Tough Guy-y.
 
2009-12-30 07:30:25 PM  
maelstrom0370: 99% of the cut of your jib.

70% on the jib sail is still a fun ride.
 
2009-12-30 08:08:46 PM  
1nsanilicious: Cagey B: Personally, I find it kind of scary that essentially any person at random could be accused of the myriad of offenses we consider "sex crimes", without any proof, and end up in a similar situation.

I wonder how many people are placed in those situations with out any legitimate cause? I would guess that theres a good reason most of the time that someone is suspected.


wow... i hope you are never on a jury
being arrested for something is NOT proof that you did it
 
2009-12-30 08:44:57 PM  
I say we sue the biatch for allowing her son near society in the first place.
 
2009-12-30 08:47:22 PM  
dantanner: He was accused, not convicted. Had he been a convict, his sentence would have been incarceration, not a beating. The state should pay.

actually being Canada he likely would have recieved time served whilst waiting trial or at most 6 months probation with forced community service in a woman's shelter.
 
2009-12-30 08:56:56 PM  
And just for the record, the evidence and circumstances of his arrest make it very clear he was in fact the person who comitted the crime.


Its only because of stupid 2for1 credit games that he was even still in jail instead of out on bail awaiting trial.
 
2009-12-30 09:32:28 PM  
kvinesknows: And just for the record, the he got summarily executed by negligence of the state before his trial

FTFY

see ? this is what would happen if we got socialized healthcare (thrown in for kicks and giggles)
 
2009-12-30 09:34:38 PM  
kvinesknows: for allowing her son near society

.. never been or had a son huh ?
 
2009-12-30 10:19:43 PM  
Nice troll, subby. No one deserves permanent brain damage for a crime for which they have not been convicted. Do you use the Bill of Rights for toilet paper?

/don't care that it was in Canada
 
2009-12-30 11:25:42 PM  
Urinal Gum: Nice troll, subby. No one deserves permanent brain damage for a crime for which they have not been convicted. Do you use the Bill of Rights for toilet paper?

/don't care that it was in Canada


are you saying we can give people permanent brain damage once convicted?
 
2009-12-30 11:27:27 PM  
Slartibartfaster: kvinesknows: for allowing her son near society

.. never been or had a son huh ?


5 of them actually. And if a single one of them ever sexually assaults anyone and is as clearly guilty as this guy was, I would most likely be the person beating him into a state of brain damage.
 
2009-12-30 11:59:34 PM  
kvinesknows: Urinal Gum: Nice troll, subby. No one deserves permanent brain damage for a crime for which they have not been convicted. Do you use the Bill of Rights for toilet paper?

/don't care that it was in Canada

are you saying we can give people permanent brain damage once convicted?


Only if we get to charge their parents and any adult siblings with political crimes for not disowning their defective, perverted relative. If you defend perverts, then you should also get a massive dose of some Cheka-style justice. Any other crime is exempt.
 
2009-12-31 03:43:15 AM  
kvinesknows: Slartibartfaster: kvinesknows: for allowing her son near society

.. never been or had a son huh ?

5 of them actually. And if a single one of them ever sexually assaults anyone and is as clearly guilty as this guy was, I would most likely be the person beating him into a state of brain damage.


Well, when they come out flamingly gay on the other end, it will be hilariously entertaining when you claim you have no idea why...
 
2009-12-31 10:26:37 AM  
SirMadness: kvinesknows: Slartibartfaster: kvinesknows: for allowing her son near society

.. never been or had a son huh ?

5 of them actually. And if a single one of them ever sexually assaults anyone and is as clearly guilty as this guy was, I would most likely be the person beating him into a state of brain damage.

Well, when they come out flamingly gay on the other end, it will be hilariously entertaining when you claim you have no idea why...


so to be clear, you are saying because I am raising my children to not sexually assualt people, they will be gay?

hmm.. guess I can handle that trade off. Mind you, I have never sexually assualted anyone and I dont think I am gay, but maybe I have just not met the right guy.

What you doing this weekend? Wanna meet half way in Saskatoon?
 
2009-12-31 10:52:22 AM  
Friend of mine was accused of SexCrime for dating a 17-year-old while he was 19, so I'm getting a kick etc.

All he got was his face all over the news (without mention of the "victim's" age, of course, since 17 = underage, right?), though, not brain damage.
 
2009-12-31 11:08:09 AM  
MikoSquiz: Friend of mine was accused of SexCrime for dating a 17-year-old while he was 19, so I'm getting a kick etc.

All he got was his face all over the news (without mention of the "victim's" age, of course, since 17 = underage, right?), though, not brain damage.


In Canada if they can determine the victim from naming the accused they wont name the accused. In the case of your friend his face/name would not have been displayed.
 
Displayed 243 of 243 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report