MANY QUESTIONS! URM/REPEAT CLASSES/ETC Forum

[Barack O'Drama]

Someone's self perception of how they view themselves

This is fucking poetry. Seriously, whoever did this feel free to PM me because it's quality shit.

Come forward silent rogue, and receive thy prize.

[prospectiveT14]

Oh okay it's fine as long as your assailant is treasure diving and his intentions are good! Let's not forget his intentions! You sound like a moron who knows nothing about victimology

And you sound like you've never been the victim of an actual rape or legitimate sexual assault. Obviously a cavity search would be an uncomfortable, embarrassing, and highly unpleasant experience, but having a routine check performed is completely different than being sexually assaulted (assuming it was routine). The guard was doing his job, didn't personally target you, and didn't derive sexual pleasure from it. A blanket safety procedure is totally different than a targeted attack.

No it's not different. The pleasure received from the assailant has nothing to do with how a victim feels in a FORCED situation. The fact that their right is being removed from the situation is what causes that feeling where you feel like you're watching yourself from the outside. You know nothing about whether I've been sexually abused or not, please stop while you're ahead.

People accused of crimes give up certain rights. You can feel however you felt - again, I'm sure it sucked - but some things just suck. That doesn't make it sexual assault (and the article doesn't call it sexual assault).

That's how you view it. The article does state that it's painful especially for victims of sexual assault. It's assault because it's forced. When someone touches you without consent and it causes trauma what would you call that? In sexual nature because you're showing your most private parts.

[Kali the Annihilator]

Someone's self perception of how they perceive themself when others perceive themself to themselves is troubling.

Put her in a pumpkin shell
and there he kept her very well (which is essentially rape).

[TuxedoCats]

i love how someone who posts with such SJW tendancies is arguing from such a privileged vantage.

SERIOUSLY

She drove legally drunk, went through the same thing as EVERYONE who goes to jail, had her bond posted, and had an attorney that got her down to reckless driving.

Astounding.

[Kali the Annihilator]

Not so astounding once you realize OP is not real.

Hickory dickory dock
The mouse ran up the clock for what seemed like an eternity
which is basically assault

[prospectiveT14]

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/ ... earch.html

[prospectiveT14]

i love how someone who posts with such SJW tendancies is arguing from such a privileged vantage.

SERIOUSLY

She drove legally drunk, went through the same thing as EVERYONE who goes to jail, had her bond posted, and had an attorney that got her down to reckless driving.

Astounding.

Moron moron moron moron moron keep talking about stuff you don't know about lol

[Barack O'Drama]

Oh okay it's fine as long as your assailant is treasure diving and his intentions are good! Let's not forget his intentions! You sound like a moron who knows nothing about victimology

And you sound like you've never been the victim of an actual rape or legitimate sexual assault. Obviously a cavity search would be an uncomfortable, embarrassing, and highly unpleasant experience, but having a routine check performed is completely different than being sexually assaulted (assuming it was routine). The guard was doing his job, didn't personally target you, and didn't derive sexual pleasure from it. A blanket safety procedure is totally different than a targeted attack.

No it's not different. The pleasure received from the assailant has nothing to do with how a victim feels in a FORCED situation. The fact that their right is being removed from the situation is what causes that feeling where you feel like you're watching yourself from the outside. You know nothing about whether I've been sexually abused or not, please stop while you're ahead.

People accused of crimes give up certain rights. You can feel however you felt - again, I'm sure it sucked - but some things just suck. That doesn't make it sexual assault (and the article doesn't call it sexual assault).

That's how you view it. The article does state that it's painful especially for victims of sexual assault. It's assault because it's forced. When someone touches you without consent and it causes trauma what would you call that? In sexual nature because you're showing your most private parts.

You're really pathetic. My mom was raped and murdered when I was 12. Your entire idea of what sexual assault is based off of the most literal definition is just stupid. I guess when someone bumps into you in the airport and accidentally touches your ass, that too is sexual assault? The definition you're using might not say this; but intentions matter vis-a-vis sexual assault.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Sexual assault, legally speaking, is a crime that has to be committed by someone with the requisite intent. Prisons don't need consent to search you because you have given up certain rights by being accused of a crime. In the article, the women have been convicted of a crime, which also means they've given up certain rights. It's a sucky thing and I'm sure it can be traumatizing, but as long as people hide contraband in their private parts (which they do) I'm not sure how else you can expect jails/prisons to address the issue.

Edit: you get that your link said that the Supreme Court said strip searches are legal, right? No one's disputing that they suck to go through.

[Kali the Annihilator]

Post a link
a little thing
that said my figurative rape
is legal

Find a dog
and give em my log
but no romanians
or beagles

[TuxedoCats]

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/ ... earch.html

"The [Supreme] Court said the search was legal."

Did that go the way you wanted it to go?

[Nachoo2019]

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/ ... earch.html

Lol all you're doing is proving that your "assault" was actually a completely legal, and routine search.

The U.S. Supreme Court settled the issue in the case of Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, which involved a strip search of an arrestee who was arrested and taken to jail because county officials had not deleted a civil contempt order for failure to pay a fine that Florence had in fact paid. Like everyone else entering that jail, Florence endured a visual strip (and body cavity) search, which turned up nothing but was deeply disturbing. Nonetheless, the Court said the search was legal. (Florence v. County of Burlington, No. 10-945.)

You really should read things thoroughly before you post things that directly support the opposing argument.

Like I said earlier. Your lack of ability to read and research is appalling.


Coupled with being a "nasty bitch with 7 Fs"( ) I really think this is the wrong profession for you.

[prospectiveT14]

Sexual assault, legally speaking, is a crime that has to be committed by someone with the requisite intent. Prisons don't need consent to search you because you have given up certain rights by being accused of a crime. In the article, the women have been convicted of a crime, which also means they've given up certain rights. It's a sucky thing and I'm sure it can be traumatizing, but as long as people hide contraband in their private parts (which they do) I'm not sure how else you can expect jails/prisons to address the issue.

Edit: you get that your link said that the Supreme Court said strip searches are legal, right? No one's disputing that they suck to go through.

Right but it's innocent until proven guilt so the potentially innocent (like 95% of strip searches) are thrown into that mix. It's called a METAL DETECTOR and if you're super concerned about metal in anyone's ass you can unintrusively resolve that problem.

[Nachoo2019]

Sexual assault, legally speaking, is a crime that has to be committed by someone with the requisite intent. Prisons don't need consent to search you because you have given up certain rights by being accused of a crime. In the article, the women have been convicted of a crime, which also means they've given up certain rights. It's a sucky thing and I'm sure it can be traumatizing, but as long as people hide contraband in their private parts (which they do) I'm not sure how else you can expect jails/prisons to address the issue.

Edit: you get that your link said that the Supreme Court said strip searches are legal, right? No one's disputing that they suck to go through.

Right but it's innocent until proven guilt so the potentially innocent (like 95% of strip searches) are thrown into that mix. It's called a METAL DETECTOR and if you're super concerned about metal in anyone's ass you can unintrusively resolve that problem.

Drugs pass a metal detector. Most weapons snuck into jail are plastic or ceramic. Which also pass a metal detector.

Lol

[Barack O'Drama]

Sexual assault, legally speaking, is a crime that has to be committed by someone with the requisite intent. Prisons don't need consent to search you because you have given up certain rights by being accused of a crime. In the article, the women have been convicted of a crime, which also means they've given up certain rights. It's a sucky thing and I'm sure it can be traumatizing, but as long as people hide contraband in their private parts (which they do) I'm not sure how else you can expect jails/prisons to address the issue.

Edit: you get that your link said that the Supreme Court said strip searches are legal, right? No one's disputing that they suck to go through.

Thank you Nony!

[cavalier1138]

I'm hoping that the personal statement is along the lines of, "Ever since my arrest, I've been filled with the burning desire to fight an unjust system. The brutality and injustice in the law enforcement system when an officer can legally pull over a drunk driver and arrest them for being drunk. With your JD in my pocket (that's where you keep it, right?), I could finally rid the world of those most corrupt of the boys in blue: the ones that unfairly target dangerous drivers and determine their drunkenness through an objective and fair test in order to protect the public."

It was mentioned earlier, but it bears repeating: two black men were just shot point-blank for complying with police officers. Let that sink in before you start complaining about how no one has been through the traumas that you have.

[SFSpartan]

Oh okay it's fine as long as your assailant is treasure diving and his intentions are good! Let's not forget his intentions! You sound like a moron who knows nothing about victimology

And you sound like you've never been the victim of an actual rape or legitimate sexual assault. Obviously a cavity search would be an uncomfortable, embarrassing, and highly unpleasant experience, but having a routine check performed is completely different than being sexually assaulted (assuming it was routine). The guard was doing his job, didn't personally target you, and didn't derive sexual pleasure from it. A blanket safety procedure is totally different than a targeted attack.

No it's not different. The pleasure received from the assailant has nothing to do with how a victim feels in a FORCED situation. The fact that their right is being removed from the situation is what causes that feeling where you feel like you're watching yourself from the outside. You know nothing about whether I've been sexually abused or not, please stop while you're ahead.

People accused of crimes give up certain rights. You can feel however you felt - again, I'm sure it sucked - but some things just suck. That doesn't make it sexual assault (and the article doesn't call it sexual assault).

That's how you view it.

That's not how Nony views it. That's how it is. You are guaranteed certain personal rights by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. You give up some of those rights voluntarily by committing a crime. Normally, you have a right to refuse a search by a law enforcement officer (unless they have a warrant or some other reason for said search). Here, you chose to drive drunk. Nobody forced you to drink, and nobody forced you to drive. You did those things on your own, and you got caught. Therefore, you gave up your right to refuse an unreasonable search. Put differently, by choosing to drive drunk and getting caught, you gave the police the ability to strip search you. That said, I feel super bad for you because it seems like that strip search caused some legitimate psychological/mental issues, or aggravated preexisting issues.

To keep this from going in a fucking circle - how the officer, public defender, or anyone else treated you throughout the process is simply not relevant here. It may be relevant for other purposes, but not re: you gave up certain rights by committing a crime.

Also, fucking google mens rea and then come back and tell TLS how intent doesn't matter.

[pancakes3]

Your presence is requested in this thread:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 7&start=50

[prospectiveT14]

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/ ... earch.html

Lol all you're doing is proving that your "assault" was actually a completely legal, and routine search.

The U.S. Supreme Court settled the issue in the case of Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, which involved a strip search of an arrestee who was arrested and taken to jail because county officials had not deleted a civil contempt order for failure to pay a fine that Florence had in fact paid. Like everyone else entering that jail, Florence endured a visual strip (and body cavity) search, which turned up nothing but was deeply disturbing. Nonetheless, the Court said the search was legal. (Florence v. County of Burlington, No. 10-945.)

You really should read things thoroughly before you post things that directly support the opposing argument.

Like I said earlier. Your lack of ability to read and research is appalling.


Coupled with being a "nasty bitch with 7 Fs"( ) I really think this is the wrong profession for you.

We're not discussing the legality of it you fucking idiot, obviously it's legal if prisons can get away with it

Notice the word "disturbing" in the answer?

[prospectiveT14]

Oh okay it's fine as long as your assailant is treasure diving and his intentions are good! Let's not forget his intentions! You sound like a moron who knows nothing about victimology

And you sound like you've never been the victim of an actual rape or legitimate sexual assault. Obviously a cavity search would be an uncomfortable, embarrassing, and highly unpleasant experience, but having a routine check performed is completely different than being sexually assaulted (assuming it was routine). The guard was doing his job, didn't personally target you, and didn't derive sexual pleasure from it. A blanket safety procedure is totally different than a targeted attack.

No it's not different. The pleasure received from the assailant has nothing to do with how a victim feels in a FORCED situation. The fact that their right is being removed from the situation is what causes that feeling where you feel like you're watching yourself from the outside. You know nothing about whether I've been sexually abused or not, please stop while you're ahead.

People accused of crimes give up certain rights. You can feel however you felt - again, I'm sure it sucked - but some things just suck. That doesn't make it sexual assault (and the article doesn't call it sexual assault).

That's how you view it.

That's not how Nony views it. That's how it is. You are guaranteed certain personal rights by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. You give up some of those rights voluntarily by committing a crime. Normally, you have a right to refuse a search by a law enforcement officer (unless they have a warrant or some other reason for said search). Here, you chose to drive drunk. Nobody forced you to drink, and nobody forced you to drive. You did those things on your own, and you got caught. Therefore, you gave up your right to refuse an unreasonable search. Put differently, by choosing to drive drunk and getting caught, you gave the police the ability to strip search you. That said, I feel super bad for you because it seems like that strip search caused some legitimate psychological/mental issues, or aggravated preexisting issues.

To keep this from going in a fucking circle - how the officer, public defender, or anyone else treated you throughout the process is simply not relevant here. It may be relevant for other purposes, but not re: you gave up certain rights by committing a crime.

Also, fucking google mens rea and then come back and tell TLS how intent doesn't matter.

No, you don't forfeit your rights when accused. That's not how the law works.

[Kali the Annihilator]

Amazing stuff

[A. Nony Mouse]

So what is it that you're trying to say if you're admitting it's legal? How else do you propose jails/prisons address non-metal contraband? No one has disputed that it's disturbing. Sometimes people have to go through disturbing experiences.

And actually, yes, you give up some rights when accused. That's honestly just how it works.

[prospectiveT14]

Brb rape motivation is relevant in court. I raped you for love, does that mean it's ok? Are you suddenly ok with it?

[Kali the Annihilator]

Brb rape motivation is relevant in court. I raped you for love, does that mean it's ok? Are you suddenly ok with it?

[SFSpartan]

Oh okay it's fine as long as your assailant is treasure diving and his intentions are good! Let's not forget his intentions! You sound like a moron who knows nothing about victimology

And you sound like you've never been the victim of an actual rape or legitimate sexual assault. Obviously a cavity search would be an uncomfortable, embarrassing, and highly unpleasant experience, but having a routine check performed is completely different than being sexually assaulted (assuming it was routine). The guard was doing his job, didn't personally target you, and didn't derive sexual pleasure from it. A blanket safety procedure is totally different than a targeted attack.

No it's not different. The pleasure received from the assailant has nothing to do with how a victim feels in a FORCED situation. The fact that their right is being removed from the situation is what causes that feeling where you feel like you're watching yourself from the outside. You know nothing about whether I've been sexually abused or not, please stop while you're ahead.

People accused of crimes give up certain rights. You can feel however you felt - again, I'm sure it sucked - but some things just suck. That doesn't make it sexual assault (and the article doesn't call it sexual assault).

That's how you view it.

That's not how Nony views it. That's how it is. You are guaranteed certain personal rights by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. You give up some of those rights voluntarily by committing a crime. Normally, you have a right to refuse a search by a law enforcement officer (unless they have a warrant or some other reason for said search). Here, you chose to drive drunk. Nobody forced you to drink, and nobody forced you to drive. You did those things on your own, and you got caught. Therefore, you gave up your right to refuse an unreasonable search. Put differently, by choosing to drive drunk and getting caught, you gave the police the ability to strip search you. That said, I feel super bad for you because it seems like that strip search caused some legitimate psychological/mental issues, or aggravated preexisting issues.

To keep this from going in a fucking circle - how the officer, public defender, or anyone else treated you throughout the process is simply not relevant here. It may be relevant for other purposes, but not re: you gave up certain rights by committing a crime.

Also, fucking google mens rea and then come back and tell TLS how intent doesn't matter.

No, you don't forfeit your rights when accused. That's not how the law works.

As Nony has pointed out already, yes you do. And even if you didn't, you do give up some rights by virtue of being charged with a crime. Here, you were charged with DUI, then you were taken to jail. An employee/officer of the jail performed a permissible search on you. They were permitted to do that because we, as a society, have decided that when people are charged with crimes, they give up the right to refuse searches. It wasn't about being accused, it was about being charged. Sorry, but that's just how it works.