Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Scary, U.S. Supreme Court, Chemical Weapons Convention, Articles of Confederation  
•       •       •

23782 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Nov 2013 at 10:29 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-11-05 09:53:17 AM  
4 votes:

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 09:35:20 AM  
4 votes:
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 10:39:15 AM  
3 votes:
If my husband got my best friend pregnant, you'd see a whole lot of crazy from me as well.
2013-11-05 10:44:28 AM  
2 votes:
It's a good thing jurisprudence isn't decided by asking 100 random people their feelings on the matter.
2013-11-05 10:35:36 AM  
2 votes:
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 10:34:31 AM  
2 votes:
Good freaking grief.  Subby nailed it.  After reading that article, good freaking grief.
2013-11-05 10:32:45 AM  
2 votes:
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.
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-11-05 09:43:32 AM  
2 votes:
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 09:37:33 AM  
2 votes:
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?
2013-11-05 12:43:41 PM  
1 vote:
Sticking your dick in crazy is always a good idea. Letting crazy have any way of finding you after the fact and by extension marrying crazy is the problem.
2013-11-05 12:10:53 PM  
1 vote:
I'd really like to know why the local PD refused to charge her despite video evidence of her applying toxic chemicals to attack a romantic rival 24 farking times... Is she the sister or daughter of someone powerful and influential or something?
2013-11-05 12:03:27 PM  
1 vote:
Uh...the story teaches you not to get married to crazy. Just sticking your dick in crazy is usually a lot of fun
2013-11-05 11:41:33 AM  
1 vote:
Terrorism is the new Hero...

Whats even more disturbing is the amount of Farkers around here who have lost their minds and actually think this, or many other acts are terrorism. Whats even more disturbing then that is the fact that these mouth-breathers are not called out. This is how shiat like 'Hero' becomes a word tossed around for people who are not even remotely close to being a 'Hero' like the victims of a school shooting.

Terrorism has a very distinct definition. An act of violence designed to coerce a population of people into changing their minds or actions regarding a political or social cause. A woman spreading chemicals to kill her ex-husbands new lover is absolutely NOT terrorism. Some
arse-hole who decides to snap and go on a shooting rampage is NOT a terrorist, criminal, yes, mass shooter, yes, mass murderer yes, terrorist no.

Some arse-hole shooting up an abortion clinic because he doesn't like abortion, terrorist, burn down a logging operations headquarters because they hate the logging industry, terrorist, blow up your neighbors garage because his dog wont stop barking, not terrorist.

Any Farker who claims this womans acts were acts of Terrorism should be locked in a Mall in Kenya during an actual terrorist attack....
2013-11-05 11:10:36 AM  
1 vote:
This is why you should never sleep with a married man.
2013-11-05 11:10:02 AM  
1 vote:
greentea1985:
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.

No, and no. "Terrorize" doesn't simply mean to "scare" or "injure" someone. If you rob a bank, you're not committing bank terrorism. If you sideswipe someone's car during road rage, you may scare them, but you're not terrorizing them. If you drive drunk, you're not committing an act of terror against every citizen on the roads. Terrorism is specifically about attacks on civilian populations to cause them to petition their government to change a political policy. It's not trying to kill your ex-husband.
2013-11-05 11:09:00 AM  
1 vote:
...and yes, that fact that it involved the USPS makes it Federal.
2013-11-05 11:02:28 AM  
1 vote:
A chemical used as a weapon is not a chemical weapon.

Iron is a chemical that can be toxic, see: Iron Poisoning

It can also be used as a weapon:
upload.wikimedia.org
2013-11-05 10:59:32 AM  
1 vote:

IdBeCrazyIf: 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 image 460x300]


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

Got it


Don't be a farking moron. On a soverign level, this is "peaceful" it isnt threatening another nation-state. The gist of this, is that the states should be prosecuting this (and they should) WTF is the government doing in this?
2013-11-05 10:54:00 AM  
1 vote:
I really need pics to evaluate if said crazy was worth pumping for 14 years.
2013-11-05 10:52:08 AM  
1 vote:
The true wtf here is that the state did NOTHING.
2013-11-05 10:49:20 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:42:45 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:42:37 AM  
1 vote:
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 10:31:38 AM  
1 vote:
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 09:58:35 AM  
1 vote:

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 09:49:08 AM  
1 vote:

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 09:48:55 AM  
1 vote:

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.
 
Displayed 27 of 27 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report