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

Innula Zenovka

Nasty Brit
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
8,645
SLU Posts
18459
Terrible story here -- what a nightmare!


A mother who was wrongly accused of trying to kill her disabled daughter by medical staff is to sue the hospital where the claims were made.

Kirsteen Cooper was accused of causing infections and cutting a feeding tube attached to her daughter Baillie.

This led to police charging her with attempted murder and access to her daughter being restricted for two years.

After accusations were disproved by medics, the charges were dropped.

Now Mrs Cooper, 42, is preparing a legal case against NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.
 

Innula Zenovka

Nasty Brit
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
8,645
SLU Posts
18459
I've been trying to think of any laws she might have been breaking had this taken place in her home in the UK, if she lived here and not Utah, and I'm struggling.

As far as I know, for it be any sort of sexual offence it would have had to involve exposure of the genitals, and even then the prosecution has to prove that this exposure was intended to cause alarm or distress. Otherwise, it could constitute a very low-level public order offence, but it would have to take place in public for that to apply. If it happened repeatedly somewhere on in her property where neighbours could be expected to see it and they'd complained about it in the past, then possibly it could be harassment, but that's not the issue here.

I could be wrong, but I can't think of anything. I saw from the report that

so I checked the Crown Prosecution Service guidance for prosecutors over here, and I think it can accurately be summarised as "don't waste your or the court's time": Nudity in Public - Guidance on handling cases of Naturism | The Crown Prosecution Service

I guess the ruling makes sense, as explained by Judge Pettit:
In Fort Collins [a case in which a Colorado ordinance was declared unconstitutional], the ordinance outlawed a woman from showing her breasts in public. It did not include language indicating that exposure was unlawful for men, and it did not require any specific intent or mental state.

The portion of the law that Buchanan is charged under is much different, Pettit ruled. It prohibits lewd behavior by both women and men in front of children, and also requires prosecutors to show that the defendant exposed themselves and knew their actions would either cause “affront or alarm” to the children or “with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desires” of either party.

[....]

“It is the prerogative of the Legislature to establish laws incorporating contemporary community standards regarding lewdness,” the judge wrote. “It is not for the court to decide whether the Legislature’s enumeration of lewd conduct is wise or sound policy.”

That makes it a jury matter, I agree -- the point of using general terms like "lewd" (or, in other contexts, "harassment" or "threatening" or "dangerous" and so on) is, at least in the UK, the legislators are leaving it up to the jury to decide whether the conduct complained about is, in fact, "lewd" according to their standards, as adult men and women from a variety of backgrounds, many of whom will have first-hand experience of family life, so I can see why the judge was unwilling to find, as a matter of law, that the behaviour complained about could not be described as "lewd," and thinks it should up to the jury to decide, on the basis of the evidence in this specific case, whether her behaviour is caught by the statute.


I would hope, though, that the trial judge can be persuaded to find that there's no case to answer, since it's going to be difficult to prove to the criminal standard either that she intended to cause "affront or alarm" to her stepchildren or that she intended to "arouse or gratify the sexual desires" of anyone, and if the judge does let it go to the jury, then I would very much hope they find her not guilty, for those reasons.

But I honestly wonder about the DA's wisdom in prosecuting the case in the first place.
 

Fionalein

an old grumpy cat
Joined
Jul 30, 2019
Messages
1,431
SL Rez
2017

I guess the ruling makes sense, as explained by Judge Pettit:



That makes it a jury matter, I agree -- the point of using general terms like "lewd" (or, in other contexts, "harassment" or "threatening" or "dangerous" and so on) is, at least in the UK, the legislators are leaving it up to the jury to decide whether the conduct complained about is, in fact, "lewd" according to their standards, as adult men and women from a variety of backgrounds, many of whom will have first-hand experience of family life, so I can see why the judge was unwilling to find, as a matter of law, that the behaviour complained about could not be described as "lewd," and thinks it should up to the jury to decide, on the basis of the evidence in this specific case, whether her behaviour is caught by the statute.


I would hope, though, that the trial judge can be persuaded to find that there's no case to answer, since it's going to be difficult to prove to the criminal standard either that she intended to cause "affront or alarm" to her stepchildren or that she intended to "arouse or gratify the sexual desires" of anyone, and if the judge does let it go to the jury, then I would very much hope they find her not guilty, for those reasons.

But I honestly wonder about the DA's wisdom in prosecuting the case in the first place.
just keep in mind: They are Muricans! If confined she will have to register as sex offender and in certain states tell her neighbours about this once she moves in.

These Americans are crazy.
On another note: we actively seek trade deals with them, entrusting our industries to their broken juristiction... makes me wonder who really is the crazy folks there.
 
  • 1Agree
Reactions: Brenda Archer

Innula Zenovka

Nasty Brit
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
8,645
SLU Posts
18459
From The Guardian: 'The new evidence raises deeply troubling questions': did Arkansas kill an innocent man?

The day before Ledell Lee was executed on 20 April 2017, he talked to the BBC from death row. He said that while he could not prevent the state of Arkansas from killing him, he had a message for his executioners: “My dying words will always be, as it has been: ‘I am an innocent man’.”

Almost two years after Lee was strapped to a gurney and injected with a lethal cocktail of drugs, it looks increasingly likely he was telling the truth: he went to his death an innocent man. New evidence has emerged that suggests Lee was not guilty of the brutal murder of a woman in 1993 for which his life was taken.
 

Innula Zenovka

Nasty Brit
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
8,645
SLU Posts
18459
  • 1Thanks
Reactions: Brenda Archer

Innula Zenovka

Nasty Brit
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
8,645
SLU Posts
18459

Kamilah Hauptmann

A bit of a wanker
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
6,996
Location
Cat Country (Can't Stop Here)
SL Rez
2002
While not a counterpoint, related:


This is the message of some recent stories citing the thrift of National Basketball Association star Kawhi Leonard. Yes, he has a three-year $103 million contract with the Los Angeles Clippers, but at least until recently he drove a 20-year-old SUV. Yet here’s the thing: You could skip buying a new car for the rest of your life and you will still likely never be as rich as Leonard by virtue of the fact that you don’t have a $103 million contract.


By the way, he hasn’t really skimped on his housing. But so what? He can easily afford it based on his huge annual income. And he probably should buy a newer car with ]better safety features], reducing the odds of a catastrophic injury that prematurely ends his playing career.
 
  • 1Thanks
Reactions: Brenda Archer

Romana

The Timeless Child
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
2,110
SL Rez
2010
What in the actual

While not a counterpoint, related:

In my family we always drove cars til they were unfixable or needed frequent repair. I liked driving a reliable old car because the insurance was lower and so what if it got accepted free dings.
Maybe these guys feel the same way.
The car I was driving was 20 years old when I sold it on. It's still on the road.
Judgy people who have to tell you how to live, SMH.
 
  • 1Agree
Reactions: Brenda Archer

Argent Stonecutter

Emergency Mustelid Hologram
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
2,282
Location
Coonspiracy Central, Noonkkot
SL Rez
2005
Joined SLU
Sep 2009
SLU Posts
20780
I'm sorry, so what if I'm not getting a $103 million contract? It's still sound financial sense to drive a car until repairs cost more than payments on a new one.

As for the safety of his car, it's a freaking SUV. It's a huge steel cage that's going to come out on top in most collisions.
 
  • 1Agree
Reactions: Brenda Archer