Discussion in 'General Industry Related Topics' started by littleguy, Mar 29, 2001.
What is going on...
Is there a point to this thread popping up... Im a little confused?
Out of lurking
This thread has my name on it
Better left unressurected
Why resurrect this post???
Am I missing something?
Is this the appropriate time to resurrect this thread ?????
I'm sure Ozzy will correct me if I'm wrong but I think his point was that some things done under the influence of certain substances can be excused and others, such as DUI/DWI are automatically prosecuted to the fullest extent.
Ozzy said "when people are exonerated for crimes" I took that to mean something that does hurt others adn therefore equated it to DWI, which certainly also can hurt others too.
I guess the simple answer is that they're both prosecuted according to the laws on the books. To me, the real question really is, Why are DWI and other crimes under the influence NOT prosecuted in the same manner with the same (or similar) penalties ? Why would one perp "get away with" causing certain harmful things to occur BECAUSE he was under the influence while a DWI gets prosecuted BECAUSE he was under the influence since the underlying cause of BOTH incidents is really BAD JUDGEMENT, that is, of course, being under the influence in the first place.
I'm still not sure I explained this correctly but I'm not going to re-write it.
Well I was responding to Ozzy who was questioning why some people get away with somthing which turns bad because they are drunk or stoned and DWI or DUI. A lot of the difference for me comes from putting others at risk when you are DWI or DUI
I'm not making any distinction between DUI or DWI. I'm simply saying that the real reason for that vehicle becoming a 3000+ pound weapon is poor judgement, i.e. getting behind the wheel when we shouldn't. We all show poor judgement from time to time, no ?
i'm not sure i understand your distinction re: DUI and intent. Can't the same be said of DWI.
I have no problem saying if i agree with GC or just like something he says. Besides the rarer something is the more special it is.
[Edited by skellychamp on 04-02-2001 at 02:13 AM]
Actually Oz, I'm not a lawyer. I know your point is not directed at me.
I guess I can understand your inferrence to it not being consensual when the lady is, because of, let's say alcohol, not in complete control of her faculties, but what about when the guy ALSO is not in complete control of his ? While you may still make the argument it is not consensual, who's fault is it then ? That seems to have been the case in BOTH stories.
Not to defend DUI, but your reference to a 3000+ pound weapon implies intent, no ? I would think that DUI is mostly a matter of bad (impaired) judgement. Not that that makes any difference to anybody that driver has killed or maimed. People make mistakes when their judgement is impaired. Hell we ALL make mistakes when we are thinking quite clearly.
BTW, Skelly, I just re-read the entire (now closed) thread entitled "An open note to one of the boys" and saw (again) your very-late-in-the-thread (remarkable ?) compliment to GC re his post.
You may also note that there was a 2nd remarkably lucid post of his immediately after your compliment. Very clearly thought out and remarkably well stated. This being, of course, from my point of view since I think I actually understood 100% of both posts.
Do you mean other than the laws which make it a crime to drive while intoxicated or under the influence? Or that while in such condition you are wielding a 3000+ lb weapon made of steel.
[Edited by SkellyChamp on 04-01-2001 at 01:21 AM]
it works both ways. it wasn't ment at all towards you or anyone else in general......but, if she's drunk to the point that she doesn't know (and this is not in anyway directed to either of these cases (SINCE I WASN'T THERE))....isn't that considered non consensual in the eyes of the law?
LG...you're a lawyer..right.....? whats it say about people who aren't of sound mind or under the influence and can't make a proper judgment?
now totally off topic, but a question for the lawyers out there....
why is it that in some past cases, people have been exonerated for crimes because they were not coherent at the time(either by drugs or alcohol)...yet if your blasted and get behind the wheel of a car...you're totally at fault?
ok i'm stepping of my soapbox for today....
Completely agree with 8:39 PM post.
Agree with first line of 6:32 AM post.
Disagree with your resultant conclusion in the 2nd line.
it's not a matter of BBFS being right or wrong. it's a matter of whether it's consensual......
if you're too drunk to know, then it's never consensual.
Now, BBFS is not always a bad thing...
I once had very strong feelings for a provider. I wouldn't say love, but it was a very intense fondness. We both felt the same way at the time, so although business was still business, she saw me at a great discount, and we both got tested for STD's and when the tests came back negative, we got another test done several months later to confirm the results. After that set was done, we partook of BBFS and did so often...
it was our way of showing to each other that our interaction was special, and that this was different.
The testing part was, of course mandatory nowadays even for normal relationships so we weren't fazed. This also takes care of the main problem of the Client-Provider interaction... Disease.
Granted, before everyone goes out and asks their favorite providers to go have an HIV test with them, this does violate the Client-Provider business relationship. This is like asking a provider to marry you and will usually be met with rejection.
not to keep harping on this stupid subject since this thread (now complete with drugging and rape accusations) should be closed and deleted(yeah, i said deleted), but........
this and the issue 4 months ago serve as one shining example of what not to do while you're in a session......
and this goes for the ladies as well as the gentlemen, since it takes two to tango.........
DON'T GET YOURSELF SHIT FACED DRUNK BEFORE YOU FUCK!
thats what pregnant teenagers, montel williams and sally jessie are for.
Vindication because of this latest incident ? No not really. I had already come to terms with the incident of 4 months ago fairly soon after the incident.
As I started off this thread I made reference to another thread in another place about a discussion of whether providers ever do BBFS. Using that discussion and its responses as a basis for understanding whether what had occurred was, on a scale of 1-10, 1 being freakishly abnormal and 10 being, say, happens all the time, this BBFS incident, taking into consideration the "not totally sober" element of the two participants, would fall somewhere around 8. Had they both been totally sober the number would be somewhere around 5 or maybe a bit less.
In either case, apparently a more frequent occurrence than would generally be believed around here.
I was offered BBFS once while totally sober and very politely said "No thanks".
When I said "in this current (just finished ?) one" I was referrring to the thread that the APM CLOSED, not that I wouldn't discuss it.
Sorry for the confusion.
When I said "... in this latest incident, postings were made regarding "brutality" and "rape" which
now, apparently NEVER occurred. ... As you might expect I do not see any difference in the 2 incidents "
Apparently you "frowned in frustration", indicating you didn't understand what I was talking about, no ?
I'm not sure why you even bothered. Do you think you absolutely have to be let in on everything ? There are clearly many posts on this board that are privately understood by certain members and not others. One member even started a thread making reference to all the "secret handshakes" (I think he called it) and said he was tired of them. I am a little also. I guess I always want to know everything also but I've resigned myself to the fact that I will not. Maybe you should also.
Now I know what icon to use when I respond to most of your posts. Hahahahaha
Anyway, the previous incident to which I referred, which I will not relate in its entirety, was simply a case of BBFS between 2 people that were not entirely sober, virtually IDENTICAL to what happened here. Because of the FACTS not coming out, posters were making their opinions known based on all sorts of speculation and innuendo, which is apparently EXACTLY what happened this time to Ezrlove, if in fact the "brutality" and "rape" claims were made (since I didn't see them but apparently Ezrlove did).
Now it turns out that all that happened was BBFS. Now, don't bother getting outraged and accusing me of making light of the BBFS incident. I'm not making any judgment here whether it is or is not. I merely making the observation that it is CLEARLY nowhere near as pernicious (Is that the right word GC?) as BBFS.
Somehow I don't think pernicious is the right word. I guess that's what happens when you're trying to show off.
Re: Re: Mickey Finns and burning tanks
B][/QUOTE]did you get a ribbon? [/B][/QUOTE]
No, we kept it quiet so that the other two didn't get crap for ditching the tank and not looking out for the loader... but I did get me 20, and dinner from the boys.
Re: Mickey Finns and burning tanks
Re: Mickey Finns and burning tanks
S 125.25 Murder in the second degree.
A person is guilty of murder in the second degree when:
..... 3. Acting either alone or with one or more other persons, he commits or attempts to commit ... rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, ... and, in the course of and in furtherance of such crime he .... causes the death of a person .....
......Murder in the second degree is a class A-I felony.
me no spiga inglish.
[Edited by guy catelli on 03-30-2001 at 02:30 PM]
Separate names with a comma.