Hey, Can A Woman "Ask To Get Raped"?

All I also love that the state is once more going to try to tell adults want kind of porn they can watch.

They open the crack with child porn that no one or very few can defend as it is pictures of videos of real children being harm and now they are eager to expand it into any form of sex that the uptight religions nuts does not approve of.

Wonder how far it is in the future that midnight raids on people homes will be undertaken for all kind of unapproved porn collections that have nothing to do with child porn.

That kind of nonsense is already starting in the UK even if the government is moving slowly so not to generate one hell of a big backlack.

Seriously, I am going to split a gut laughing this hard. I am going to toss my loss if I don't stop laughing.

Oh dear, Arella Mae. Now he's worried about his porn collection.


BTW, have you seen this? I love it!

I am laughing so hard at work everyone is wanting to know what's going on. The other ladies in the office loved that magnet. I had to send it to each of them. Oh work is so much fun.

It must be a sin to laugh this hard. Hmmm, remind me to set the parental controls on my computer at home. I've been keeping Tom Tom in the house lately. heehee

http://criminal.lawyers.com/Criminal-Law-Basics/Merger-Doctrine-and-Criminal-Sentencing.html

What Crimes May Be Merged
The rules on merger vary from state to state, and they're different when federal laws are involved, too. Also, the facts and circumstances of the case usually have an impact on whether crimes will merge. Nonetheless, there are some general rules when it comes to the merger doctrine:

Merger will likely be applied when one crime is a lesser included offense of another crime committed by the defendant. For example, the crime of theft or "larceny" usually involves the taking of someone else's property, without permission and with the intent of keeping it. Robbery includes the same conduct, but with the threat of physical force or intimidation. Theft is part of robbery, and so the two crimes merge. So, a defendant who steals a victim's purse at gun point can't be convicted of and sentenced for theft and robbery. He'll likely be convicted of and sentenced for robbery only
If each crime has different elements, or if the prosecution needs different evidence to prove each crime, merger won't apply, even if the two crimes arise from the same conduct. For instance, where an the aggravated assault charge requires proof that a defendant used a deadly weapon to cause injury, and an aggravated battery charge requires proof that he caused the victim to lose the ability to use a part of his body, the two crimes have different elements and don't merge
If one crime is completed before another, there's no merger. For example, if a defendant robs a store clerk at gunpoint and takes money from the cash register, and then he hits the clerk in the head with the gun, the crimes of armed robbery and aggravated assault don't merge
An attempt to commit a crime merges with the actual crime, once the actual crime is committed. For example, a defendant commits attempted burglary once he tries to pry open the door to house with the intention of stealing money and valuables inside it. If he actually breaks in and takes valuables, he can't be can't be convicted of sentenced for the attempt and the actual burglary (This rule varies greatly from state to state)
Conspiracy to commit a crime and the actual crime, if committed, don't merge. So, if two defendants plan out a bank robbery and then carry out that plan, each defendant can be convicted of and sentenced for the crimes of conspiracy and bank robbery
Each state may have different rules about merger, and the federal laws are different, too. Also, the facts and circumstances of your case will have a big impact on merger. Be sure to check the laws that apply to your case, and talk to an experienced criminal law attorney, to make certain that you don't lose any benefits from the merger doctrine.

Sentencing
When it comes to the sentencing phase of a criminal prosecution, the judge looks at your convictions to determine the sentence or punishment you should get. If you've been convicted of more than one crime, the sentences may be stacked or added to each other, which will lead to a harsher sentence, like longer jail time. At this point, the judge can determine

Oh wow! "HE" is admitting he was wrong! First he said cases are tried separately and now he posts something proving himself wrong? WOWZA! There may be hope for him yet.

It's either that or he's just too out in lala land to realize he blew his own argument out of the water.

BTW how did you get into my porn collection?

You can not bring a dozen crimes that are not related before one jury fool under any western legal code.

If a man is charge with raping one woman six months before he rape another woman you can not try him with both crimes before one jury.

If a man go into a home and rape two women at the same time then he can be try under one jury for both crimes as they are tightly related to each other.

You can not try a man for murder of one person and a rape of another person before the same jury if they are not connected in some manner.

You can not get a hundred women to come forward crying rape and combine all of them into one trial unless he had one had one hell of a busy night going through an apartment building.

Are you realty that slow?

Now I ask the rest of you, do you see anywhere that I said you could bring cases together that were unrelated? Hmmmm, I didn't think so. I am not the one that made the first statement about how you can only try one case at a time and then started backtracking because they realized they were in error but are.........um........oh!.........oh!.................I know-not a big enough man to admit it.

Let me refresh your memory:

"HE" posted:

Fool this started by you claiming that you can print the name and details of a rape that you are charging one person with in a newspaper and then wait to collect other women coming forward claiming they to had been rape by the same person and then had one trial before one jury to try all those non-related rapes cases all together.

That you can not do....................

Would someone kindly tell "him" I never made any such claim? Me thinks he's getting a bit flustered and is having a problem keeping track of who says what.

He can't understand, or accept, that police and D.A.'s may want all possible victims of a rapist to come forward so that they may consider all of the evidence they have against him. That allows them to better select which cases to prosecute, and gives them leverage to have the rapist accept a plea deal to close as many of those cases as possible.

What Billy Boy considers as "unfair" to the rapist, is actually in the best interests of justice--you hold the rapist accountable for as many of his crimes as possible.

But we already know he is pro-rapist. So, that's nothing new.

He didn't understand the Glenn Marcus BDSM case either. Didn't he say Jodi must have been "consenting" because she didn't get up and leave the relationship? He didn't connect with the woman being in a state of terror and being blackmailed by Marcus--apart from her role as a "slave". He was even on the side of Marcus. I think there is no rapist low enough not to receive Billy Boy's support if he could try to find an out for someone like Marcus. Maybe he's into BDSM too.

Imagine how upset poor Hawkeye and BillRM will be to find out you might need your wife's consent to even read her e-mail.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/husband_says_wife_cheated_but_hes_charged_with_felony_after_reading_her_e-m

They already feel so emasculated by the whole idea of "consent" in the sex assault laws, that latest news might drive them off the deep end.

It is very obvious that "he" is pretty flustered. He can't even remotely keep his facts straight now. I noticed he disappeared and I'm guessing that's because again he realized he was wrong (about that statement and saying I said it) again and isn't man enough to stand up and admit he made a mistake.

He's kind of like shooting fish in a goldfish bowl. At one time, I had some sympathy for him. He crossed a line and that's now gone.

Wow! A felony for reading his wife's email? My husband wouldn't have a clue how to even find email. But then again, we trust each other completely so we don't need to worry about such things. Not true in all cases though. Sad thing too.

I have no question that naming someone can at time be a useful tool to force or pressure someone to plea out however the harms such tactics does to innocent men and their families should outweigh that benefit by a million times or so.

At least for anyone who give a **** about the welfare of innocents men.

LMBO! See? He's not going to admit he was wrong. And he's worried about innocent men? He needs to start worrying about his guilty self first.

But, you see, it is I that am the fool..........................

Could he ever keep things straight? He's accused me of saying things I never said throughout this thread.

I'm not sure "flustered" is the right word for his condition.

I assume that her giving me her passwords for her email accounts is implying consent to do so, just as my giving similar passwords imply consist on my part to access my email on the net.

Now if you are talking about files including email files on a hard drive of a computer that I own or own jointly with my wife then she have no right to privacy from me. The reverse is also true except for the fact I have the ability to encrypted any part of the computer I care to do so.

It is in fact settle law that an employer can exam anything that his employees placed on this computer equipment including emails and the same thing apply to your own computer equipments or jointly own computer equipments.

Guilty of what my not too bright friend?