Re: I like "Do not want"

1

Too many at once. Pacing!


Posted by: Tasseled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 10-21-10 4:35 PM
horizontal rule
2

Is there a GIF there for "pacing"?


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 10-21-10 5:27 PM
horizontal rule
3

If the "do not want" heebie's referring to is the judge peeking briefly at the laptop, then closing it slowly with a pained expression, that's my favorite as well.


Posted by: persistently visible | Link to this comment | 10-21-10 5:45 PM
horizontal rule
4

they left out the "that's racist!" gif, and it's my favorite
http://www.gifbin.com/981768


Posted by: alameida | Link to this comment | 10-22-10 2:30 AM
horizontal rule
5

4: Word.

Also, no such list could be complete without these two.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10-22-10 4:41 AM
horizontal rule
6

The one with Bristol highlights again how grotesque her whole Dancing with the Stars stint has been. So awkward! Can't stop watching!

(Also, did they not tell any of the other contestants that Jennifer Grey was going to be on it? Seriously? These people want to keep being on television so badly that they sign up for a dance contest against Baby?!)


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 10-22-10 5:04 AM
horizontal rule
7

I was told there would be no corners.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10-22-10 5:12 AM
horizontal rule
8

The only problem is that reading that page felt more like somebody vomited however many years of pop culture right into. Or was busy extracting it from my skull, which sounds more painful.

max
['Now I want to return to my home planet.']


Posted by: max | Link to this comment | 10-22-10 5:54 AM
horizontal rule
9

It does seem like the contestants who spent several years as professional dancers have an advantage.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 10-22-10 6:03 AM
horizontal rule
10

9: D'ya think?


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 10-22-10 6:11 AM
horizontal rule
11

"Do not want", killer bees version.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 10-22-10 7:15 AM
horizontal rule
12

Something's been killing the bees. Well, now they're killing back.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 10-22-10 7:18 AM
horizontal rule
13

It's not so much the fungus/virus thing: the European honeybees are probably just moving to the suburbs.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 10-22-10 7:52 AM
horizontal rule
14

As the guy I linked to on the other thread pointed out, American plants managed to reproduce perfectly well without European or African bees for zillions of years. Somewhere in Guatemala, a rather clever Mayan peasant is giggling madly.


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 10-22-10 7:58 AM
horizontal rule
15

That took forever to load. In fact, it never loaded. Usually the only website ever to completely fail to load on my computer, repeatedly, is the Hullabaloo blog.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 10-22-10 8:17 AM
horizontal rule
16

15. Sorry about that.

Yes I get that problem with Hullabaloo too, and today I got it with the Independent (newspaper). But only at work, where I'm locked into IE6. At home, FF3.x never drops anything.


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 10-22-10 8:21 AM
horizontal rule
17

So, Mineshaft Legal Collective: Should the man in this appalling story forced an unwilling woman into sex at knifepoint be convicted of a crime?


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 10-22-10 8:27 AM
horizontal rule
18

^ who


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 10-22-10 8:28 AM
horizontal rule
19

17: Christ. What assholes.

I'm not part of the legal collective, but it makes perfect sense to me that he was charged. I don't see any way you could respond to personal ads involving sex, violence and complete strangers and expect the exercise to be free of legal risk. Especially not when the only confirmation you've bothered to acquire is exchanging a few faceless text messages with someone whose identity you have no way of verifying.


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 10-22-10 12:48 PM
horizontal rule
20

What DS said. Mens rea is an element of the crime, of course, and without it you shouldn't be convicted, but as a juror I can't see managing to work up a reasonable doubt about his mens rea unless he put forth some pretty convincing fucking evidence of it.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10-22-10 12:55 PM
horizontal rule
21


Legally speaking, is mens rea required for criminal liability in this case? Or could it be like statutory rape, where strict liability obtains (it doesn't matter that little Delores showed you a convincing-looking fake ID; if you get it on with her and she turns out to be 16, you're culpable).

If mens rea is required, what is the relevant legal standard? I'd think a "reasonable person" standard would doom the guy, unless the jury pool is drawn from the readership of the local alt weekly or something.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 10-22-10 1:21 PM
horizontal rule
22

Did we not talk about this case back when it first hit the news? I have a vague memory of it, but maybe that was somewhere else.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10-22-10 1:26 PM
horizontal rule
23

I agree with DS and LB. As a society, the implications of this defense would be bad.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 10-22-10 1:31 PM
horizontal rule
24

21: unless the jury pool is drawn from the readership of the local alt weekly

See, without engaging with the specific legal questions involved, I'd read it the opposite way. Both common sense AND a familiarity with the standards of the BDSM community would suggest that before you "make someone's rape fantasy come true", you meet with them in a public place and have a negotiation about exactly what is entailed. I can totally see a jury of normal straight people being like "huh, he thought it was her sending those interweb messages, right?" But perhaps I am prejudiced.

NULLIFICATION 4EVAR!


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 10-22-10 1:33 PM
horizontal rule
25

I agree with 22. IIRC, discussion was extensive.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 10-22-10 1:39 PM
horizontal rule
26

21: Mens rea is absolutely required -- the statutory rape thing is a freak exception.

On the standard, I think it's actual belief -- if the jury has a reasonable doubt about whether the defendant was actually mistaken about the facts, they acquit. In a juror's shoes, I wouldn't take the story told by by the defendant as sufficient to create a reasonable doubt in my mind as to whether he actually believed she consented, unless it were much more convincing when delivered in the courtroom than I think is at all likely.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10-22-10 1:47 PM
horizontal rule
27

24: But I could see him getting acquitted by idiots on that basis.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10-22-10 1:48 PM
horizontal rule
28

Funny, I'm drawing a blank on the prior discussion. Are there any grudges I should be holding from it?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10-22-10 1:48 PM
horizontal rule
29

There was definitely extensive discussion about it somewhere.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 10-22-10 2:11 PM
horizontal rule
30

5 commenters that no one remembers stormed off because of it.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 10-22-10 3:13 PM
horizontal rule
31

a familiarity with the standards of the BDSM community

Maybe we should check with Domineditrix.

The defendant claims that the victim never used the "safeword" of antidisestablishmentarianism.


Posted by: Tasseled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 10-22-10 3:36 PM
horizontal rule
32

I would think (but am not going to bother with research) that the mens rea would apply only to the actual actus reus -- i.e., he knowingly commited an act of sexual penetration. The fact that she did not consent is an additional element of the crime, but not one to which the mens rea applies. Depends how the relevant statute is worded, of course.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 10-22-10 4:40 PM
horizontal rule
33

Also, the victim should sue the fuck out of Craigslist.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 10-22-10 4:52 PM
horizontal rule
34

Wait, urple has been around and discussing things? I thought he/she was new.

Also, this was the plot of an episode of The Closer.


Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 10-22-10 5:52 PM
horizontal rule
35

Ah, a quick google search tells me 34.1.2 is not so. Sorry!


Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 10-22-10 5:53 PM
horizontal rule
36

33: Really?


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 10-22-10 5:58 PM
horizontal rule
37

||
Well, fuck.

NMM2 the Jimmy Johns Workers Union. For now. Lost by 2 goddamn votes. 22 Unfair Labor Practices filed against the company. "No" voters are off celebrating on the company tab. Dumbasses. Like a night worth of free drinks is better than the option of having sick days.

We're gonna roll the union on though. Wobblies have suffered a lot worse.

||>


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 10-22-10 6:09 PM
horizontal rule
38

The Wobblies probably had better ham.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10-22-10 6:14 PM
horizontal rule
39

One of the issues that came up during this drive was a Shift Leader being instructed by her manager to use meat that had sat in a broken cooler overnight and was visibly decaying. So, yeah, pretty much.


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 10-22-10 6:25 PM
horizontal rule