Now we know not to talk about pedos

Hypothetical: What would be your reaction if it turned out that she genuinely didn't know the kid's age and the whole scandal consisted of a single texted pic that really wasn't all that revealing?

+1

I believe the reality here is far more this than the prurient construct. I've said as much. No one has confirmed that the manatee was an avowed predator. I'll read the offered confirmed record.
 
+1

I believe the reality here is far more this than the prurient construct. I've said as much. No one has confirmed that the manatee was an avowed predator. I'll read the offered confirmed record.

try the actual charge that ended up sticking.

847.0138(2) Transmitting An Image, Information, Or Data That Is Harmful To Minors To An Individual Known To Be A Minor In This State

(1) For purposes of this section:

(a) "Known by the defendant to be a minor" means that the defendant had actual knowledge or believed that the recipient of the communication was a minor.

(b) "Transmit" means to send to a specific individual known by the defendant to be a minor via electronic mail.

(2) Notwithstanding ss. 847.012 and 847.0133, any person in this state who knew or believed that he or she was transmitting an image, information, or data that is harmful to minors, as defined in s. 847.001, to a specific individual known by the defendant to be a minor in this state commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
 
That statement was offensive to manatees everywhere.

Well, they aren't everywhere. They're rather site specific and a dwindling breed. The laser pointer I use and the insult it wields are as specific as brain surgery. (And fuck if this wasn't with the broad scalpel!)
 
Someone that shall remain nameless, unless they want to come forward.

I did get a PM from an alt, though, here it is:

Conveniently non-verifiable...

...therefore, meaningless.

Your "trust me" isn't payable here...

...I'm sure you understand, bigot.
 
try the actual charge that ended up sticking.

Great. You hold up the very net used to snag the pig instead of the circumstances under which it was felled. I did not dwell this far into the cavern. Whatever! Charges stick because they're convenient. The actual offense may have been far more subtle. I'm not here to defend an idiot. (Funny how it's actually harder to defend an obese idiot.) Yes, Kips... I guess these are the charges that "stuck" - though no "conviction" seems to have adhered. Shall we provide links now to dancing banana evidence? No. Your dick's bigger.... it's a gimme at this club.
 
Nah...

...pere's likes his nose so far up his own pathologically lying ass I just can't see him sharing it with shorn.

Lookit eyer acting like miles.

Eyer, how did you feel when Grace rebuffed your advances? Did you check your email yet?
 
try the actual charge that ended up sticking.
.....

847.0138(2) Transmitting An Image, Information, Or Data That Is Harmful To Minors To An Individual Known To Be A Minor In This State

(1) For purposes of this section:

(a) "Known by the defendant to be a minor" means that the defendant had actual knowledge or believed that the recipient of the communication was a minor.

(b) "Transmit" means to send to a specific individual known by the defendant to be a minor via electronic mail.

(2) Notwithstanding ss. 847.012 and 847.0133, any person in this state who knew or believed that he or she was transmitting an image, information, or data that is harmful to minors, as defined in s. 847.001, to a specific individual known by the defendant to be a minor in this state commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

This is a just law...

...intent - knowledge - must unquestionably be established for the crime to occur.
 
Great. You hold up the very net used to snag the pig instead of the circumstances under which it was felled. I did not dwell this far into the cavern. Whatever! Charges stick because they're convenient. The actual offense may have been far more subtle. I'm not here to defend an idiot. (Funny how it's actually harder to defend an obese idiot.) Yes, Kips... I guess these are the charges that "stuck" - though no "conviction" seems to have adhered. Shall we provide links now to dancing banana evidence? No. Your dick's bigger.... it's a gimme at this club.

google is your friend.

http://adjudicationwithheld.com/adjudication-withheld-florida/
 
That reads like it was written by a 12 year old Czech ESL student.


Awesome.

that's great, but i think you can figure out the meaning of it if you actually bother to try. basically, she was convicted, but the judge likely chose to show mercy by giving her a chance to be a decent human being by giving her probation and a chance to have the conviction wiped if she manages to do that instead of up to five years in prison and no chance of having the conviction removed. why? you'd have to ask the judge, but i'm guessing it was because she's a woman and it was her first known offense not because she's some persecuted innocent.
 
that's great, but i think you can figure out the meaning of it if you actually bother to try. basically, she was convicted, but the judge likely chose to show mercy by giving her a chance to be a decent human being by giving her probation and a chance to have the conviction wiped if she manages to do that instead of up to five years in prison and no chance of having the conviction removed. why? you'd have to ask the judge, but i'm guessing it was because she's a woman and it was her first known offense not because she's some persecuted innocent.

I thought it was a plea bargain?
 
If you're a pedo who hates blacks, gays, and women, you have nothing to worry about from the Stormfront.org crowd. :cool:
 
Back
Top