Is the Head of the IMF a Sex Criminal?

@spendius,

Quote:

Would you like to see me switch sides. When I get on my hindlegs extolling the virtues of pure innocent womanhood you had better watch out.

Oh goodness me! Yes!

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Given that it is claimed that MLK would made DKS look like a boyscout in his sex life

Even if MLK did have affairs William, do you think he would sexually assault a maid and then claim he was objecting to the sexual assault laws? Because that is what hawk is implying here.

2 Replies

@panzade,

Quote:

Even if MLK did have affairs William, do you think he would sexually assault a maid and then claim he was objecting to the sexual assault laws? Because that is what hawk is implying here.

He was lucky he was not alive today with as many enemies as he had and a willingness to have sex with good looking hotel maids could had resulted in a rape charge similar to the current DSK charges.

0 Replies

@panzade,

Quote:

Even if MLK did have affairs William, do you think he would sexually assault a maid and then claim he was objecting to the sexual assault laws? Because that is what hawk is implying here.

Bullshit, I am saying that the thinking of and the conversation of what is just and what is not MUST take place. You can disagree with me about what is just, but when you come at me with Fireflys position that justice does not matter, that the laws are told to us by the state and that we must obey them, in that case you deserve to be dispised and to be held out for ridicule, as such a position shows a supreme lack of respect for democracy and for human rights. I am certain that Firefly is lying again, but since I cant prove it I will attack her here for her demonstrated lack of morality.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

We also know that sex law is in rapid flux, that it has been written vaguely on purpose and that there is no agreement even amongst functionaries of the state what current law is.

You are so enmeshed in the fantasies of your own creation you can't even see objective reality in the DSK case.

The criminal laws prohibiting forcible sexual assaults, committed against the will of another person, are not in "rapid flux"--these laws have been around a very, very long time.

There is nothing vague about the specific NYS laws under which DSK is charged--they are quite clear and they describe and define the precise behaviors which are considered criminal.

You really should try reading those specific laws, Hawkeye. That you don't want to do so, is a good example of, "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up." All you are doing is repeatedly displaying your ignorance of what the actual state sexual assault laws say.

Quote:

there is no agreement even amongst functionaries of the state what current law is

Are you saying that all the police, all the prosecutors, and all the judges, in NYS, or any state, don't agree on what on what those current sexual assault laws actually say? Are you saying that none of them know what the current law in NYS is? So, they just make up laws and definitions for each new case? Rolling Eyes

Hawkeye, you've passed the sublime and you're well into the ridiculous.

There is complete agreement among the police, the prosecutors, the judges, and the defense attorneys about what those NYS sexual assault laws actually say, and which behaviors they describe and define as criminal, and how those laws should be generally interpreted. And, in any criminal action, the wording of those sexual assault laws will be closely followed--which is why, in the criminal complaint against DSK, it specified the exact behaviors he allegedly engaged in that would constitute violations of those laws. There is nothing vague, or ambiguous, about any of this.

Do you also find the traffic laws in your state too fuzzy for you to understand? Rolling Eyes

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

but when you come at me with Fireflys position that justice does not matter, that the laws are told to us by the state and that we must obey them, in that case you deserve to be dispised and to be held out for ridicule, as such a position shows a supreme lack of respect for democracy and of human rights.

How dare you lecture me about a respect for democracy and human rights, you're only concern is for personal rights, a total stance of the selfish and self-centered machismo male.

YOU deserve to be despised and to be held out for ridicule, as you roundly are on this forum. I have always discussed matters with you with civility but you've crossed a line hawk.
What utter nonsense...that I'm coming at you with Firefly's position. She has her position. I have mine.
I don't need her to give me my position.

That you would equate MLK's non-violent resistance to the laws of segregation with your resistance to the laws against sexual assault show how deluded you really are.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

Are you saying that all the police, all the prosecutors, and all the judges, in NYS, or any state, don't agree on what on what those current sexual assault laws actually say? Are you saying that none of them know what the current law in NYS is? So, they just make up laws and definitions for each new case?

THe first Google search item for "difficulty in interpreting sexual assault laws"

Quote:

a Pennsylvania case, the victim's verbal protest against penetration was not enough for State prosecutors to win a rape conviction. In a New Jersey case, lack of consent to intercourse was sufficient to lead to a finding of criminal sexual assault. Evidence in a California case that the defendant's behavior generated fear in the victim helped win a rape conviction. Despite their differences, State rape statutes generally provide that the crime of rape can be established if there is evidence of three elements: (1) that sexual activity occurred between the defendant and the victim; (2) that the defendant used force or the threat of force to engage in sexual activity; and (3) that the victim did not consent to sexual activity. There is widespread confusion and disagreement, however, over the meaning of these three elements and their relative importance. States have even developed their own statutory terms for sex offenses, a trend that legal experts say is designed to rid sex crimes of specific "resistance and proof" connotations. Several States, including Minnesota and Utah, do not require evidence of force to prosecute and convict on a rape charge. Moreover, States treat consent and resistance differently. Recent court rulings in Pennsylvania, California, and New Jersey highlight difficulties associated with interpreting sexual assault statutes.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=151646

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

We can all see your double standard here Firefly, as you want me to talk about what is just and what is not but you take the position that you dont need to question such matters, what ever the state tells you is fine with you. It is a lie of course, but it is your position here.

I have no double standard. I do not find the current NYS sexual assault laws "unjust"--particularly the ones DSK has been accused of violating.

Whenever you accuse me of lying, it means you can't stick to logic and rational rebuttal of what I've said, so you desparately resort to trying to assail my character. I'm not lying about anything. I have no reason to lie. It is mainly the liars who always wonder whether other people are lying too.

You're the one carrying on that the laws are "unjust". But you haven't identified in what way the specific NYS criminal sexual assault laws, DSK is accused of violating, are "unjust".

1 Reply

@panzade,

Quote:

That you would equate MLK's non-violent resistance to the laws of segregation with your resistance to the laws against sexual assault show how deluded you really are.

It all in how you define sexual assault with special note of how you define consent and the invalidation of consent after the fact.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

I have no double standard. I do not find the current NYS sexual assault laws "unjust"--particularly the ones DSK has been accused of violating.

Without a qualifying statement from you as to what your perception of what the laws are by statute, and of how they are applied, your statement is meaningless. We have no idea what it is that you think is just. Of course you have also said that you have no problems with any of the sex laws in the land, so I think that we know that you either have no standards or you are not telling us the truth.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

when you come at me with Fireflys position that justice does not matter, that the laws are told to us by the state and that we must obey them, in that case you deserve to be dispised and to be held out for ridicule, as such a position shows a supreme lack of respect for democracy and for human rights

I never said that justice doesn't matter. You just can't stop with the distortions, can you, Hawkeye? I don't find the NYS criminal sexual assault laws, under which DSK is charged, to be unjust. Justice is more than possible with these laws, and they help to insure justice for the victims of such crimes. You do remember there are victims when these sexual assault laws are violated, don't you, Hawkeye? The victims are the ones who were forcibly sexually assaulted against their will.

To say that agreement with these current laws, "shows a supreme lack of respect for democracy and for human rights" really shows how twisted your logic is. These laws were written by duly elected state legislatures--legislators who represent the people who democratically elected them--and the laws were then voted on in a democratic procedure in the legislatures. The entire process reflects respect for democracy and human rights.

What are the "human rights" of people, both males and females, who don't want to be subjected to forcible sexual assaults committed against their will? How do the "rights" of such people figure into your scheme of things, Hawkeye? Should those men and women be unprotected by laws to prohibit such behaviors?

As usual, you are arguing your right to do what you want to do, unfettered by law, while forgetting that other people have equally compelling reasons for wanting such laws--to protect them from unwanted forcible sexual assaults.

And. as usual, you are trying to turn the focus of attention on yourself rather than the topic. And, as usual, it's the same boring, re-hashed litany of complaints from you.

2 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

I never said that justice doesn't matter. You just can't stop with the distortions, can you, Hawkeye? I don't find the NYS criminal sexual assault laws, under which DSK is charged, to be unjust. Justice is more than possible with these laws, and they help to insure justice for the victims of such crimes. You do remember there are victims when these sexual assault laws are violated, don't you, Hawkeye? The victims are the ones who were forcibly sexually assaulted against their will.

You do remember dont you that it is the state which charges defendant, in all of our names, to pursue justice for everyone....right? The alleged victim is just one person, what they want and what they feel is just is no more important that what I want and what i feel is just. This entire feminist driven movement to have the courts address "victims rights" front and center is just one of the many ways that the feminists have corrupted and largely ruined sex law. It is now at base an unjust system, and in justice is the natural product of an unjust system.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

To say that agreement with these current laws, "shows a supreme lack of respect for democracy and for human rights" really shows how twisted your logic is. These laws were written by duly elected state legislatures--legislators who represent the people who democratically elected them--and the laws were then voted on in a democratic procedure in the legislatures. The entire process reflects respect for democracy and human rights.

So was the laws. that demands that blacks ride in the back of buses and not swim on some beaches and not be allow on Miami Beach Florida after sunset.

As far as sex laws, so was the laws, that is still on the books in Florida that declare couples living together out of wedlock are committing a crime.

All legally pass laws so I presume you would have no problems with any of them Firefly as they all represent the will of the people and was pass by democratic procedures.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

THe first Google search item for "difficulty in interpreting sexual assault laws"

I don't see NYS listed among those states, do you, Hawkeye? Laughing

Also that article is 17 years old. Even the states which are mentioned in that article may have clarified their terms and definitions since then.

You are hung up on rape, Hawkeye. Give DSK a break, that's one thing he's not accused of doing.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

Also that article is 17 years old. Even the states which are mentioned in that article may have clarified their terms and definitions since then.

Your position is so outrageous that I dont feel that I need to go to ANY work to back up my assertion, so you should feel honored that I did what little I did. We have talked on A2K at several points about disagreements about what the laws mean, for instance the debate about using porn laws to charge kids for sexting, and using the porn laws to charge parents for having pic of their kids in swim suits. I frankly doubt that anyone takes your nonsense line of reasoning seriously. If it turns out that some do then I will reconsider the amount of time I am willing to devote to showing that you are nuts.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawk--does it not bother you a little, and Bill, that ff seems much more eager to take on your arguments that she does mine. Mine she just says don't interest her which is a common way out. Very common in fact.

She has lured you both onto her territory where you can never get free of the nets and snares she has practiced with for a long time.

I have a business which only has customers whose wives run the show. So I can claim to be taking a principled stance as it is against my financial interest. Women seek to spend all their husband's wages because they know that if they have money some other woman will start luring them. They could prevent that by exhausting their husband's sex drive but you must know how distasteful they find that.

Obviously she isn't telling you the truth. Some people say women are incapable of telling the truth. It is no great discovery or revelation. It is something we have to work with. When she ignores my points it is then she tells the truth but not consciously.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Without a qualifying statement from you as to what your perception of what the laws are by statute, and of how they are applied, your statement is meaningless.

This is my perception of those laws, by statute.

http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/4dd14f3dccd1d5e91e1e0000/strauss-kahn.jpg

You now have each statute number for the charges against DSK and you can look them all up and actually read them. You will notice, the description of each statute violation by DSK is given in the first paragraph under the list of charges--and, in the second paragraph, it is backed up by the circumstances under which the violations occurred--that's how the statutes were applied in this case.

Your thinking, as usual, is so muddled that you are confusing the actual laws with other issues. And I'm not interested in your "usual issues"--I've heard them a zillion times, Hawkeye, and you have nothing new to add to them--I want to discuss the DSK matter, and not your general views, Hawkeye. DSK, and his legal situation, are far more interesting than you are.

0 Replies

Sometime the law made sense...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In bizarre twist, wife indicted after husband shot her lover
By ANGELA K. BROWN Associated Press

March 30, 2007, 8:46PM Share Texas — Darrell Roberson came home from a card game late one night to find his wife rolling around with another man in a pickup in the driveway.

Caught in the act with her lover, Tracy Denise Roberson — thinking quickly, if not clearly — cried rape, authorities say. Her husband pulled a gun and killed the other man with a shot to the head.

On Thursday, a grand jury handed up a manslaughter indictment — against the wife, not the husband.

In a case likely to reinforce the state's reputation for don't-mess-with-Texas justice, the grand jury declined to charge the husband with murder, the charge on which he was arrested by police.

"If I found somebody with my wife or with my kids in my house, there's no telling what I might do," said Juan Muniz, 33, who was having lunch today with one of his two small children at a restaurant in the middle-class suburban Dallas neighborhood where the Robersons lived. "I probably would have done the same thing."

Tracy Roberson, 35, could get two to 20 years in prison in the slaying of Devin LaSalle, a 32-year-old UPS employee.

Assistant District Attorney Sean Colston declined to comment on specifics of the case or the grand jury proceedings but said Texas law allows a defendant to claim justification if he has "a reasonable belief that his actions are necessary, even though what they believe at the time turns out not to be true."

Mark Osler, a Baylor University law school professor and a former federal prosecutor, said the grand jurors evidently put themselves in the husband's place: "I can see one of them saying, 'I would have shot the guy, too. I was just protecting my wife.'"

The December night before the shooting, Tracy Roberson sent LaSalle a text message that read in part, "Hi friend, come see me please! I need to feel your warm embrace!" according to court papers. LaSalle apparently agreed.

Darrell Roberson, a 38-year-old employee of a real estate firm, discovered the two, his wife clad in a robe and underwear.

When Tracy Roberson cried that she was being raped, LaSalle tried to drive away and her husband drew the gun he happened to be carrying and fired several shots at the truck, authorities said.

Darrell Roberson's attorney did not immediately return a call for comment.

His wife also was charged with making a false report to a police officer — for allegedly saying she was raped — and could get up to six months behind bars on that offense. It was not immediately clear whether she had a lawyer.

She had not been arrested as of this afternoon.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

hawk--does it not bother you a little, and Bill, that ff seems much more eager to take on your arguments that she does mine. Mine she just says don't interest her which is a common way out. Very common in fact.

She has lured you both onto her territory where you can never get free of the nets and snares she has practiced with for a long time.

I think it is otherwise...I think that she has enormous pride in her intelligence and that she is overall an arrogant bitch who is used to getting what she wants by bullying. She goes after Bill and I because she has no respect for us, she views us as not as smart as you and thus more easy pray. she probably thinks that she can outsmart you too but not as easily. Also, I was at one point heavily vilified around here, so she expected to be able to incite the mob into making another attempt to shut me down, as even though it did not work when I first started to speak my heresy soon after I came to A2K hope springs eternal. Here again you are a more difficult target as you have never stirred up a lot of hate in your wake. Also as you well know she is very practiced at playing rhetorical games, and normally she gets away with it here at A2K, but she certainly has to believe that you are one of the few that will not let that slide. Without her tool of using language dishonestly her toolbox is pretty weak, so she would be careful about dealing with you.

As for her excuse for not taking you on, I am well aware that Firefly will say what ever she thinks will work, that she tries to sell what ever she thinks that most people will want to buy. If her assertions are logical and truthful that is more and accident than anything else.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

I dont feel that I need to go to ANY work to back up my assertion, so you should feel honored that I did what little I did.

Right, you don't have to back up any of your assertions. You can just make things up, the way you usually do. But, you actually did a Google search (and posted an article which showed no confusion in interpreting NYS sexual assault law, so it didn't back up your point Laughing

), and you did it just for little old me. Oh, I certainly do feel honored. What an honor...why it's almost like receiving the Dames GBE from the Queen herself.

http://forwardeasy.com/home/happymouse.gif

2 Replies

Is the Head of the IMF a Sex Criminal?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know