WTF Sh*t's F*cked Up and Bullsh*t - a "Who Cares" thread for news

Joined
Sep 19, 2018
Messages
6,769
Location
NJ suburb of Philadelphia
SL Rez
2003
SLU Posts
4494
  • 1Agree
Reactions: Katheryne Helendale

Govi

Crazy woman yells at clouds
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
1,570
Location
North of Surf City
SL Rez
2004
Joined SLU
27.05.2009
SLU Posts
5294

Ava Glasgow

Ava Ava hot like lava
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
450
Location
Underwater
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
2008
SLU Posts
2365

WolfEyes

Well known member no one knows
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
4,502
SL Rez
2004
Joined SLU
2009
  • 2OMG!
Reactions: Govi and Ellie

Jolene Benoir

Hello World
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
3,174
Location
Minnesnowta
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
Dec 2010
Two U.S. Senators applying for bailout money for farmers under White House program

Of course.

Two U.S. Senators — Sens. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.) — are applying for federal money under a $12 billion bailout program set up by the White House to help farmers hurt by trade hostilities, spokespeople from their offices said.

Grassley’s net worth in 2015 was $3.3 million, and Tester’s in 2015 was $3.9 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. U.S. senators are also paid $174,000 annually.

“Many taxpayers would be shocked to learn members of Congress who are receiving what by any measure is a lot of money are now also receiving a bailout check ostensibly designed to help struggling farmers,” Faber said. “It underscores exactly what’s wrong with the bailout program — that many of the recipients of farm bailout funding are doing just fine.”
 

Rose Karuna

Childless Crazy Cat Lady
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 24, 2018
Messages
2,455
Location
Central Florida
SL Rez
2005
Joined SLU
2007
Something to make everyone laugh. Only in Florida ... I'm laughing so hard at this one I'm choking on my coffee.

TITUSVILLE, FL (RNN) - When a Florida grandmother opened her blinds early Friday morning, she expected to see her cat on the back porch but was greeted instead by the sight of a naked man.

Police say 28-year-old Axel Rivera broke on to Pennelope Pettersen’s back porch around 2:20 a.m. Friday, took off his clothes and began “gyrating” at her in a “lewd manner,” according to Florida Today.

Pettersen said she saw a shadow on her porch through the blinds and opened them to investigate.

“I always look first. I opened the blinds and said, ‘Oh, hell, that’s not my cat,’” [omg, laughing so hard my stomach hurts] she told WFTV. Pettersen, who once worked in security and law enforcement, decided to scare the suspect, according to WFTV. Pettersen says she popped her teeth out and shouted “Grandma no teeth” at the man. <--- literally tears of laughter here.

Officers later found Rivera wandering naked through the parking lot of an apartment complex, Florida Today reports. He told them his clothes had been stolen. Rivera is charged with one count of exposing his sexual organs and one count of burglary.

“It could have been a very, very bad scene. The woman was victimized, not only having to have someone enter her home that’s not wanted in her home but also someone who was wearing no clothes,” said Amy Matthews with Titusville Police to WFTV.

At Rivera’s court appearance Friday afternoon, a prosecutor said alcohol may have been a factor in the incident, WFTV reports.
 

Innula Zenovka

Nasty Brit
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
23,907
SLU Posts
18459
'There was a lot of shame': meet the sex offender ‘who is not a sex offender’
It’s not the most conventional opening question, but the man I’ve come to talk to, Equan Yunus, is in a pretty unusual predicament. So I ask it anyway.

“Are we about to get arrested?”

Yunus fidgets a little in his chair. As do his two attorneys sitting beside him, Andrew Celli and David Berman. We’re gathered in their law offices in the bustling heart of Manhattan, and after a pause they admit that they have not the faintest clue as to whether or not we are in breach of New York statute.

Yunus is forbidden under pain of arrest and incarceration from ever coming within 1,000 feet of any school grounds. He is also prohibited from entering within 300 yards of places where children congregate, such as toy stores, parks, pet shops, playgrounds, skating rinks and bowling alleys.

Yunus could be standing on one side of a Manhattan block and on the other side of the building, totally unbeknownst to him, there could be a playground or skating rink that would send him to prison. So are we breaking the law just by sitting in this office?

“It’s impossible to know,” Yunus says, looking distressed. “I do my best to check. I try really hard to be conscious when I’m walking in areas with schools or parks and avoid them. But you try – it’s just impossible.”
Tl;dr: Drug dealer kidnapped another drug dealer, a teenage son of major local drug dealer in the course of a dispute over territory and released him the next day. Served 15 years for the kidnapping and now discovers that New York law regards him as a sex offender, as the victim was under 17, and imposes various absolutely draconian mandatory restrictions on him -- the court has no choice in the matter. He's appealing to the Federal Courts against this classification, which makes everyday life almost impossible.

I was struck by this, since the underlying thinking seems completely opposite to the regime in the UK. Here, there's a statutory requirement for the defendant, on conviction, to register as a sex offender, which basically means keeping the police informed of any changes in his address. Additionally the trial judge may, at the end of the trial, impose a specially-tailored Sexual Offences Prevention Order that imposes specific restrictions on him, in order to protect the public from the risk of serious sexual harm from the defendant.

These orders, which are intended as administrative measures for public protection rather than as additional punishments, are supposed to be as least burdensome as is consistent with public protection. Blanket bans on using the internet or owning a computer are very much frowned upon by the superior courts, and the usual requirement here is that the offender must inform the police of any computer equipment he owns or controls, must not delete his internet history and must make his equipment (and passwords) available for inspection by the police on demand (if anyone's interested, one of the leading cases on this is Smith & Ors, R. v (Rev 1) [2011] EWCA Crim 1772 (19 July 2011), in which the Court of Appeal varied some orders it considered unduly restrictive).

The general idea is that, once the defendant is released from prison, the hope is that he'll go on to lead a reformed and productive life, and placing arbitrary restrictions on him, without any demonstrated need for them, is not going to help him towards this end.

It's bad enough when legislators micromanage judges by imposing mandatory sentences. When they get into the business of imposing mandatory post-release provisions, it becomes even worse.
 
  • 1Thanks
Reactions: Ellie

Dakota Tebaldi

Well-known member
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 19, 2018
Messages
9,818
Location
Ohio
Joined SLU
02-22-2008
SLU Posts
16791
I know the provision is "sex offender" but if we look at the functionality of the restrictions, the idea is keeping him away from kids. I'm not really opposed to the idea that part of the punishment for committing crimes against children - whether that's molesting them or kidnapping them or whatever - should be that you lose the right to interact with and be among children; permanently or for an appreciable but limited amount of time, depending on how bad the offense was.

But, I do think that some of the distance provisions are just ridiculous, for the reasons this article points out. 1,000 feet? What is the point of a distance like that - to ward off evil magic? The provision to keep 300 feet away from places children congregate already protects the kids at school just as fine as it protects kids at a "bowling alley" (lol, when was the last time you saw children congregating at a bowling alley in the US?). Shoot even a 200-foot ban is probably enough to keep an offender off the same block, if that's the goal. 1,000 feet is absurd, especially in a place like New York where there's schools everywhere.

Also - serious shame on the Guardian for trying to minimize the fact that this man kidnapped a 14-year-old kid by emphasizing the victim was a "drug dealer". "The drug-dealing father contacted the police"??? WT actual F is this victim-blaming horsecrap?
 

Innula Zenovka

Nasty Brit
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
23,907
SLU Posts
18459
Also - serious shame on the Guardian for trying to minimize the fact that this man kidnapped a 14-year-old kid by emphasizing the victim was a "drug dealer". "The drug-dealing father contacted the police"??? WT actual F is this victim-blaming horsecrap?
I think they were trying to emphasis the motive behind the kidnapping -- he kidnapped someone he believed to be another drug dealer, aged in his late teens or early twenties. He chose his victim, in other words, because he was a drug dealer and the son of a rival drug dealer, not because of his youth.

Be that as it may, I think that this kind of restriction needs to be designed specifically for the individual, to prevent particular behaviours in order to protect the public. The requirement not to come within n feet of particular types of place, for example, presumably applies even if he's simply driving past the school (or being driven, on a bus) on his way to work, or even if he passes underneath it on the subway. If it doesn't, then this should be specified, since potentially he can be returned to prison for breaking the order.

British (and I would imagine US) courts deal with this kind of thing all the time when considering bail conditions -- I well recall arguments about the wording of bail conditions that would both prevent the defendant from entering a particular area (case involved feuding between rival gangs over territory) but allow him to drive past the area on an urban motorway (freeway) without turning off.

I would have thought that in order to achieve the intention of protecting children, a more reasonable measure would be, if it was thought necessary, to forbid the defendant from having any intentional unsupervised contact with boys/girls/children (as appropriate) under a certain age save for that which is unavoidable during the course of lawful daily life. Far more sensible and easier to understand and police than arbitrary restrictions on distances.
 

Tigger

not on speaking terms with the voices in my head
Joined
Sep 24, 2018
Messages
1,033

Kamilah Hauptmann

Shitpost Sommelier
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
15,081
Location
Cat Country (Can't Stop Here)
SL Rez
2005
Joined SLU
Reluctantly
Cheapy phone that you only use for travelling. If they mess with your phone out of sight, who knows what it might have on it when it gets back to you.
And pass up the opportunity to have a forensics person go over it? Fame!
 
  • 2OMG!
Reactions: Ellie and Govi

Dakota Tebaldi

Well-known member
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 19, 2018
Messages
9,818
Location
Ohio
Joined SLU
02-22-2008
SLU Posts
16791