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.

(NPR)   Today the US Supreme Court hears the ultimate "don't stick your dick in crazy" case   (npr.org) divider line 137
    More: Scary, U.S. Supreme Court, Chemical Weapons Convention, Articles of Confederation  
•       •       •

23750 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Nov 2013 at 10:29 AM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



137 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-05 09:35:20 AM
Why wasn't she charged with attempted murder? Also sending toxic materials through the us mail is a federal offense? Right?

This woman should consider herself lucky she was only given 6 years. Jeez.
 
2013-11-05 09:37:33 AM
Nice as subby's headline is, this case really ain't about sticking your dick in crazy, is it?

I heard this story a few minutes ago on NPR and really wanted a much longer story. It's obvious it's about the Federal-treaty-vs.-States'-Rights thing, and whether this one treaty in particular supersedes state law or not, but what are the implications of Bond winning this? Is this purely a general principle thing, or are there specific Federal laws/treaties/whatever that would immediately no longer apply? Or is a favorable decision for the states' rights people something that needs to be in place for future Supreme Court cases?

Also -- "This is the second trip to the Supreme Court for Bond."  Which organization is paying for this? What do they stand to gain -- warm fuzzy I-was-right-all-along feelings, or some specific thing they eventually want overturned?
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-11-05 09:43:32 AM
She has a good excuse to be crazy, and even if she didn't she's still not a WMD-wielding terrorist.
 
2013-11-05 09:48:55 AM

phaseolus: Nice as subby's headline is, this case really ain't about sticking your dick in crazy, is it?

I heard this story a few minutes ago on NPR and really wanted a much longer story. It's obvious it's about the Federal-treaty-vs.-States'-Rights thing, and whether this one treaty in particular supersedes state law or not, but what are the implications of Bond winning this? Is this purely a general principle thing, or are there specific Federal laws/treaties/whatever that would immediately no longer apply? Or is a favorable decision for the states' rights people something that needs to be in place for future Supreme Court cases?

Also -- "This is the second trip to the Supreme Court for Bond."  Which organization is paying for this? What do they stand to gain -- warm fuzzy I-was-right-all-along feelings, or some specific thing they eventually want overturned?



It's being presented as a 10th Amendment issue, so her case is getting support from the Cato Institute, Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, the attorneys general from six states that are suing to repeal the ACA, etc. I haven't really delved into where the money is coming from, but the case seems to have a lot of support among the Tea Party crowd.
 
2013-11-05 09:49:08 AM

phaseolus: Nice as subby's headline is, this case really ain't about sticking your dick in crazy, is it?


Uh, did you read the article? Bond was originally arrested for harassing her former best friend. AFTER that arrest, over a period of 8 months, she proceeded to steal toxic chemicals from her workplace and was videotaped spreading those chemicals over her former best friend's house 24 seperate times.

Sounds pretty crazy to me.
 
2013-11-05 09:53:17 AM

phaseolus: Nice as subby's headline is, this case really ain't about sticking your dick in crazy, is it?


Actually, it's more like don't allow a dick formerly stuck in crazy to be stuck in you.
 
2013-11-05 09:58:35 AM

vernonFL: Why wasn't she charged with attempted murder? Also sending toxic materials through the us mail is a federal offense? Right?

This woman should consider herself lucky she was only given 6 years. Jeez.


In reading the relevant US statutes that implement the CWC, it appears that she can indeed be charged, because the law applies:

§710.2   Scope of the CWCR.
The Chemical Weapons Convention Regulations (parts 710 through 729 of this subchapter), or CWCR, implement certain obligations of the United States under the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, known as the CWC or Convention.
(a) Persons and facilities subject to the CWCR. (1) The CWCR apply to all persons and facilities located in the United States, except the following U.S. Government facilities:



It's farking scary, though, because of the rather loose definition of "chemical weapon":


Chemical Weapon. Means the following, together or separately:
(1) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), provided that the type and quantity are consistent with such purposes;
(2) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in paragraph (1) of this definition, which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;
(3) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions or devices specified in paragraph (2) of this definition.

Toxic Chemical. Means any chemical which, through its chemical action on life processes, can cause death, temporary incapacitation, or permanent harm to humans or animals. The term includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions, or elsewhere. Toxic chemicals that have been identified for the application of verification measures are in schedules contained in Supplements No. 1 to parts 712 through 714 of the CWCR.



basically, that first one could cover just about any toxic chemical you might have, including common ones like pesticides and rat poison, etc., and even ones like chlorine and bleach if they don't think the "type and quantity" you have is consistent with the "intended purpose".

Also, if you have an empty, inert chemical shell, or one that could be filled with a chemical, you could be charged.

Also, while there appears to be an out for law enforcement agencies, so they can use riot agents, but the same would appear to be prohibited to non-governmental actors.
 
2013-11-05 10:31:38 AM
If she had been a male who was angry at a senator's penis, he'd be in GITMO.
She should STFU and thank krist she's not a toy for Muslim terrorists in a sekrit muslin prizon.
 
2013-11-05 10:32:19 AM
Subby, this case is actually "don't stick your dick in the best friend of crazy". Had he kept it is his pants, she wouldn't be facing a chemical weapons treaty violation.
 
2013-11-05 10:32:45 AM
His problem wasn't sticking his dick in the crazy. That was fine. The problem started when he stuck his dick in crazy's best friend.
 
2013-11-05 10:33:18 AM
I'm so glad we have people like this to help us determine the limits of our government and laws.
 
2013-11-05 10:33:22 AM

smoky2010: Subby, this case is actually "don't stick your dick in the best friend of crazy". Had he kept it is his pants, she wouldn't be facing a chemical weapons treaty violation.


*shakes tiny fist*
 
2013-11-05 10:34:31 AM
Good freaking grief.  Subby nailed it.  After reading that article, good freaking grief.
 
2013-11-05 10:35:36 AM
Clement contends that Bond's actions were "peaceful," and therefore exempted from the treaty, because of the definition of "peaceful" in international law. Treaties, Clement says, "distinguish peaceful as basically being non-warlike." Bond's run-of-the-mill assault, he argues, did not implicate national and international concerns the way a terrorist attack would.

www.toomanymornings.com



So if I want to poison a bunch of people at once, just make sure an ex is in the crowd.

Got it
 
2013-11-05 10:36:04 AM

smoky2010: Subby, this case is actually "don't stick your dick in the best friend of crazy". Had he kept it is his pants, she wouldn't be facing a chemical weapons treaty violation.


So it's the guy's fault.
 
2013-11-05 10:37:00 AM

smoky2010: Subby, this case is actually "don't stick your dick in the best friend of crazy". Had he kept it is his pants, she wouldn't be facing a chemical weapons treaty violation.


Well, let's not go too far. Just because he didn't knock up crazy's bff in hypothetical-land doesn't mean he wouldn't have done something else that set off the crazytrain.
 
2013-11-05 10:37:14 AM
Clarence Thomas tells that story all the time.
 
2013-11-05 10:37:22 AM
Spreading around lethal chemicals in a manner that could kill many others besides your intended victim? Fark that

1) Lock this crazy biatch up.
2) Lose the key.
 
2013-11-05 10:37:56 AM
My name is Bond.  Carol Bond.
 
2013-11-05 10:39:15 AM
If my husband got my best friend pregnant, you'd see a whole lot of crazy from me as well.
 
2013-11-05 10:39:40 AM
Use of chemical weapons, off to GITMO with her!!!
 
2013-11-05 10:39:54 AM
Vietnam?
 
2013-11-05 10:42:09 AM
So, what's this orange stuff?
 
2013-11-05 10:42:37 AM
That's unusual. Based on everything I've learned from Spike TV, I would have guessed she would have pulled her weave/wig, scratched punched, etc, etc.

Then I remembered Carlton Banks
 
2013-11-05 10:42:37 AM
Clement, however, holds firm and poses his own hypothetical. "I think you could tell 100 people on the street what Ms. Bond did here," he says, and none of those people would determine that Bond "deployed a chemical weapon."

I dunno, it was a chemical being used as a weapon that was deployed somewhere.

I don't get why the local cops didn't think it was a big deal.
 
2013-11-05 10:42:40 AM

dittybopper: smoky2010: Subby, this case is actually "don't stick your dick in the best friend of crazy". Had he kept it is his pants, she wouldn't be facing a chemical weapons treaty violation.

So it's the guy's fault.


No, she tried to poison her friend, but had he not eff-ed the friend none of this would have happened. So, I guess it is partly his fault. I don't understand why people just don't divorced then eff the best friend.
 
2013-11-05 10:42:45 AM

Haplo127x: If my husband got my best friend pregnant, you'd see a whole lot of crazy from me as well.


Yeah, but this is  unproductive crazy. You need to go crazy vengeful. Get a decent lawyer, keep all the assets, send him on his way with 2 pairs of socks, clean underwear, and an alimony payment.

And then you don't go to jail.
 
2013-11-05 10:43:20 AM
What happened to simply bleeding the bastard dry in divorce court?
 
2013-11-05 10:43:40 AM

Haplo127x: If my husband got my best friend pregnant, you'd see a whole lot of crazy from me as well.


That would be true of most women (and rightfully so) but hopefully most women would stop slightly short of "spreading lethal chemicals around"-crazy.

And WTF, they got her on video doing it TWENTY FOUR times? That's some doggedly persistent crazy!
 
2013-11-05 10:43:51 AM

dittybopper: smoky2010: Subby, this case is actually "don't stick your dick in the best friend of crazy". Had he kept it is his pants, she wouldn't be facing a chemical weapons treaty violation.

So it's the guy's fault.


He's got a touch of culpability, yes. The best friend also should have not slept with her friend's husband. If she was going to sleep with her friend's husbnd, she should have used birth control. If she was going to sleep with her friend's husband and not use birth control, she should have snuck out to the Abortionplex at the first sign of pregnancy.

Bond is at fault, but there's not really an innocent party here. Lots of blame to go around.
 
2013-11-05 10:44:28 AM
It's a good thing jurisprudence isn't decided by asking 100 random people their feelings on the matter.
 
2013-11-05 10:44:30 AM

UsikFark: So, what's this orange stuff?


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-11-05 10:44:42 AM

dittybopper: smoky2010: Subby, this case is actually "don't stick your dick in the best friend of crazy". Had he kept it is his pants, she wouldn't be facing a chemical weapons treaty violation.

So it's the guy's fault.


That she was pissed off? Absolutely. He owns that.

Now, that she decided to use a chemical weapon while she was pissed off, that's all her.
 
2013-11-05 10:45:12 AM

Publikwerks: Haplo127x: If my husband got my best friend pregnant, you'd see a whole lot of crazy from me as well.

Yeah, but this is  unproductive crazy. You need to go crazy vengeful. Get a decent lawyer, keep all the assets, send him on his way with 2 pairs of socks, clean underwear, and an alimony payment.

And then you don't go to jail.


Actually, women are statistically more prone to poison someone. I thinks it's a travesty that she is charged with a treaty violation rather than attempted murder or something from the criminal code.
 
2013-11-05 10:45:44 AM
You know, I was joking about the whole "It's his fault" thing.
 
2013-11-05 10:45:56 AM

macadamnut: Vietnam?


This is not 'Nam, this is the high court, there are rules.
 
2013-11-05 10:46:27 AM

Gonz: dittybopper: smoky2010: Subby, this case is actually "don't stick your dick in the best friend of crazy". Had he kept it is his pants, she wouldn't be facing a chemical weapons treaty violation.

So it's the guy's fault.

He's got a touch of culpability, yes. The best friend also should have not slept with her friend's husband. If she was going to sleep with her friend's husbnd, she should have used birth control. If she was going to sleep with her friend's husband and not use birth control, she should have snuck out to the Abortionplex at the first sign of pregnancy.

Bond is at fault, but there's not really an innocent party here. Lots of blame to go around.


Agreed. As in many if not most fark stories, there is no one involved who is not a total asshole.

Except perhaps little innocent babby who did not ask to be conceived by such idiots.
 
2013-11-05 10:46:48 AM
sigh.
 
2013-11-05 10:47:34 AM

dittybopper: You know, I was joking about the whole "It's his fault" thing.


boo, should have let it simmer for a little bit to see how many you could have worked up in furor. You had something going there.
 
2013-11-05 10:48:13 AM

dittybopper: You know, I was joking about the whole "It's his fault" thing.


Honestly, I am just trying to get back on my wife's good side. I think she may have some crazy in her too. Especially if I were to knock-up the neighbor girl, which I have no intention of!

//I love you baby!
 
2013-11-05 10:49:04 AM
I know it sounds funny saying this, but this would have been a hell of a lot more productive discussion had it been posted to the Politics Tab...
 
2013-11-05 10:49:20 AM

Uranus Is Huge!: Spreading around lethal chemicals in a manner that could kill many others besides your intended victim? Fark that

1) Lock this crazy biatch up.
2) Lose the key.


That's the thing. She was clearly using the chemicals as a weapon and while the crazy ex-wife thankfully didn't hurt anyone because the chemicals were very obvious, she put them in places where they could have harmed innocent bystanders. That is why it falls under the chemical weapons treaty.

The issue before the Supreme Court is whether crazy should be prosecuted as a terrorist under federal law or as a harraser under state law. I'd argue that crazy's intent was to terrorize her ex-husband and ex-friend, and crazy did it in such a way to put innocents like postal workers at risk. Would you charge someone who plants a bomb at the workplace of their ex with terrorism? This is a similar situation. Also, federal treaties do take precedence over state law.
 
2013-11-05 10:49:39 AM

smoky2010: dittybopper: You know, I was joking about the whole "It's his fault" thing.

Honestly, I am just trying to get back on my wife's good side. I think she may have some crazy in her too. Especially if I were to knock-up the neighbor girl, which I have no intention of!

//I love you baby!


Cover your stump before you hump.
 
2013-11-05 10:51:03 AM
This involved chemical bombing a mailbox?  Then it's a Federal case.  STFU and get back to work on a real issue, lawyer boy.
 
2013-11-05 10:51:19 AM

phaseolus: Also -- "This is the second trip to the Supreme Court for Bond."  Which organization is paying for this? What do they stand to gain -- warm fuzzy I-was-right-all-along feelings, or some specific thing they eventually want overturned?


It used to be that anyone could take a case to the Supreme Court but in the last 10 years or so it has really developed into an area of specialized practice where almost all cases are argued by attorneys from a small number of "elite" firms.  There are a small fixed number of cases available each year so these firms compete for clients... often the law firm pays for everything on this sort of case just to get "their people" more experience in front of the court.  This gives them a better chance to land multi-million dollar clients like Monsanto down the road.
 
2013-11-05 10:51:22 AM
bdub77
smoky2010: dittybopper: You know, I was joking about the whole "It's his fault" thing.

Honestly, I am just trying to get back on my wife's good side. I think she may have some crazy in her too. Especially if I were to knock-up the neighbor girl, which I have no intention of!

//I love you baby!

Cover your stump before you hump.


Or follow the old saying... don't fark the neighbor girl.
 
2013-11-05 10:52:08 AM
The true wtf here is that the state did NOTHING.
 
2013-11-05 10:52:09 AM
This case is more like 'if you are married to crazy dont stick your dick any where else'.
 
2013-11-05 10:53:42 AM

namegoeshere: phaseolus: Nice as subby's headline is, this case really ain't about sticking your dick in crazy, is it?

Actually, it's more like don't allow a dick formerly stuck in crazy to be stuck in you.


Or, don't stick your dick in crazy's best friend.
 
2013-11-05 10:53:52 AM

dittybopper: Also, if you have an empty, inert chemical shell, or one that could be filled with a chemical, you could be charged.


Gunpowder is a toxic chemical....
 
Displayed 50 of 137 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report