Why can&#039;t we have religious police like they do in Saudi Arabia? Only their job would be to catch hypocrites. They&#039;d be <i>so</i> busy...
Hmm. From the ruling:<br /><br /><blockquote>The prosecutor argued both correct and incorrect theories underwhich Jane was unconscious: that she was asleep (correct), and that she was notaware of the essential characteristics of the act because defendant deceived her intobelieving he was her boyfriend (as we explain below, incorrect). ... Because we cannot discern from this record whether the jury convicted defendant on the correct or incorrect theory, we must reverse.</blockquote><br /><br />So, not quite as you put it, but then, the impression one gets from the reportage is that the case was dismissed, which is the real \"not incendiary enough\" - the case is remanded for retrial, which, given this blockquote, is the only option that makes sense.
THANK YOU. How are we supposed to resist, when she&#039;s sleeping and all peaceful and non-combative? The honey pot&#039;s <i>right there,</i> man, just calling to us.
Umm... isn&#039;t the fact that the victim was unconscious pertinent, even in California? I seem to recall that was something the defense in the Haidl case had to come up with some abhorrent bullshit to try to work around.
Who says American kids are falling behind in school? Here we have two high school student-athletes doing what is not normally done until college.
When slumber without a Y chromosome is outlawed, only outlaws...
this.
I teach teenagers. I&#039;d have to be restrained from bouncing heads off of concrete walls.
Law in Arcadia, CA: Peacocks have the right of way to cross any street, including driveways.
Why can&#039;t we have religious police like they do in Saudi Arabia? Only their job would be to catch hypocrites. They&#039;d be <i>so</i> busy...
Kinda matches up to the porno meme of &quot;I&#039;ve got a hard-on so I have to fuck somebody immediately.&quot;
Or so one hears.
The problem comes when the Constitution is stupid (3/5 rule, 2nd Amendment, etc.)
Hmm. From the ruling:<br /><br /><blockquote>The prosecutor argued both correct and incorrect theories underwhich Jane was unconscious: that she was asleep (correct), and that she was notaware of the essential characteristics of the act because defendant deceived her intobelieving he was her boyfriend (as we explain below, incorrect). ... Because we cannot discern from this record whether the jury convicted defendant on the correct or incorrect theory, we must reverse.</blockquote><br /><br />So, not quite as you put it, but then, the impression one gets from the reportage is that the case was dismissed, which is the real \"not incendiary enough\" - the case is remanded for retrial, which, given this blockquote, is the only option that makes sense.
THANK YOU. How are we supposed to resist, when she&#039;s sleeping and all peaceful and non-combative? The honey pot&#039;s <i>right there,</i> man, just calling to us.
Does he ever sleep?
The lore in Texas was that if the woman was sleeping and didn&#039;t wake up during the rape it wasn&#039;t rape.
Surprise Affection is not a crime.
Sleeping without a chastity belt on oughta have consequences.
Umm... isn&#039;t the fact that the victim was unconscious pertinent, even in California? I seem to recall that was something the defense in the Haidl case had to come up with some abhorrent bullshit to try to work around.