Got my charging documents today. They added sexual offense in the 4th degree & a bunch of "common law" things. Twenty-two counts!
Arraignment is 0915, 25 February, Circuit Court of Maryland for Baltimore County, 401 Bosley Avenue in Towson. Be there or be square!
I guess my Chinese New Year's party really IS going to be a last bash, eh?
Posted by Styrofoaman (Member # 706) on :
Don'tcha just love it. Commit one freaking crime, (in my case it was driving with an expired license years ago) and they slap you with bunches other bullshit charges...
Aggravated Unlicensed Operation 2nd Expired License 2nd Driving Past Curfew (!! I was 27 at the time so WTF?!) Speeding (31 in a 30 zone) Inadauqate Saftey Devices (headlights weren't "aimed" right)
Never thought I would say it... but thank God (satan?) for lawyers. Got off with a $1000 fine instead of 3 months in jail.
Not even similar to what you're facing... All I can say is good luck.
Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
What did you do ShiK? I must have missed the announcement.
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
Very long story...there's at least two threads about it somewhere on here.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"What's the difference between Satan and your lawyer?
Satan always wins."
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
Times like this I wonder if anarchy really is a viable solution.
Lots of luck to ya.
Posted by Epoch (Member # 136) on :
Funny how they add those really stupid things when you get busted. Had a party in my dorm room and it got busted. Not only did I get a Furnishing Alcohol to Minors but I also got an M.I.P Pretty hard to get one of those when I was over 21.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
The reason they "stack" charges is so that the overworked State's Attorneys won't drop the charges.
"Hmm, this child molesting priest has three counts against him ... but THIS child molesting priest has twenty-four. Gee, I wonder which one I'm going to not drop charges on?"
When I did my ride-along, the Silverado driver was charged with (if my memory serves me), Driving while Intoxicated, Reckless Driving, Fleeing the Scene, Hit & Run, First Degree Assault, & a bunch of other stuff.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I'm no expert, but I think one of the other reasons they do "stack" charges like that is so they think they can cover all the bases, make it more likely to convict you of something. Even if not all the charges fit perfectly.
Great system, huh? Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
This is why I never do anything illegal... when there's even the slightest possibility I'll get caught.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
What? That's it? That's all you have to say on the subject? No "Well, that's how our system works, and it's the greatest system in the world, so if you don't like it, go live in Russia, pinko!" or equivalent? I feel cheated. Are you feeling unwell?
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
It's the new emotion chip.
He's much better, now.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"What did you do ShiK? I must have missed the announcement."
Short version: he was banging a high-schooler and her parents found out.
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Lee - he's forming an international coalition before he hits you with everything he's got. But believe me, you will be hit.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
His CIA sources probably heard I had a tin of rice pudding, and thought I said 'canister of Ricin.' 8)
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
You still don't have legal representation, Shik?
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
That is correct, sir. I fall into a financial dead zone. Here's hoping they realize it's in their best interest to appoint me an attorney. In the meantime, the Chinese New Year party is still on track & I think I may have a date on Friday afternoon before I go to work. I'm not sure, though.
Posted by Nimrod Pimding (Member # 205) on :
Rebound girl?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
She is of legal age, yes?
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Of very legal age, yes, & rebound girl, no. Not interested in love, but AM noticing a distinct absence of new friends. It's high time I made a fix of that.
New info!The prosecution is trying to bar me from ever contacting her again based on my trying to speak with her one day last month. They've made a motion to add it to the charges; no mention of the date of hearing of said motion--nice, huh? Plus, they say that I contacted her "to inquire about the pending case." A complete & utter lie. I did so merely to find out how she was doing, how she'd been over the months. Nothing about the case at all. Wonderful system we have here.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
The problem, Shik, is that there really are so many real predators out there...
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
like me!
Posted by Epoch (Member # 136) on :
Well Shik it is no longer about how bad the system is. Yes I am aware that there are serious problems with it.
However what you did was illegal regardless of the reasons behind it. At this point the prosecution is going to do everything in its power to nail your butt to the wall. This is either due to the parents activily pushing the issue or the prosecution has a real problem with this type of case. In either case it is in your best interest to sit down, shut up, and only speak when spoken to.
Don't take this as sympathy on my part though. I strongly disagree with your choice in sexual partners. The laws are there for a reason, break them for any reason and face the penalties.
Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
OK based on the comment above me here, I really want to know what's going in Shik's life to get him into trouble and references made to his choice of sexual partner.
Is it anything to do with the topic: "A bad, BAD day"?
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
No, that's about my car accident.
All I can do is quote Delenn: "The heart does...as the heart does."
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
The body, however, is controlled by the mind, at least if you care to qualify as human. Saying that your heart made you do it is definitely not gonna fly as acceptable defense.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"OK based on the comment above me here, I really want to know what's going in Shik's life to get him into trouble and references made to his choice of sexual partner."
The answer is still the same as the last time you asked.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: The body, however, is controlled by the mind, at least if you care to qualify as human. Saying that your heart made you do it is definitely not gonna fly as acceptable defense.
We're heading back to Omega-lust here, aren't we?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Did we ever leave it?
Posted by LOA (Member # 49) on :
I know I didn't! Posted by Tora Ziyal (Member # 53) on :
I don't think there's anything wrong with what he did as long as he did it for love. Maybe he could've denied himself. Maybe he could've done things differently to accomodate the law, which obviously doesn't accomodate the complexities of human relationships. But what's done is done, and just by going through this he's braver than all of us combined.
Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Short version: he was banging a high-schooler and her parents found out.
Oh. Well that happens over here in the UK all the time. Teenagers having sex as it's a new and wonderful experience and people think your a real grown up for having done it. Might have something to do with all the single teenage mothers we have here.
However, the age difference may (in some people's minds) cause a problem. Not me. If you both love each other, what else is there to say?
I just think that you were careless to get caught Shik. If she meant so much to you then you should have planned. For this sort of thing you need timetables, lists of activities the parents do, when the best time to get together is (and not get caught). Emergency plans so that you can escape if they come home while you're "busy". Shame on you for not using your superior abilities! But of course, reason and common sense undoubtedly vanish when love is involved.
I wish you (and your lady) all the best my friend.
Posted by Epoch (Member # 136) on :
quote: just by going through this he's braver than all of us combined
I find that to be a completly irrelevant comment. How does going through this make him braver then all of us combined. He screwed up and now has to face the music. Frankly bravery is not something I would apply to this.
The simple fact remains that he broke the law. And for those of you who feel that he was justified in doing so because he loved her I have two statements. First, laws are created for a reason. That reason is to maintain order. Without order all we have is chaos. Second, if he truely loves her he would have waited until she was of legal age, instead of submitting her to this extremely difficult situation.
Am I being overtly insensitive? You bet. Why? While the Justice system of this country may have slammed my family hard this last summer, I understand the need to have it. And lastly every time I walk into a class that I'm subbing for I look at the students before me and hope that nobody is taking advantage of them.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
This is a rather serious set of issues that I don't think we'll be able to resolve to anyone's satisfaction on our little Star Trek-themed bulletin board.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
But when she gets older and releases a hit song about this incident with Shik, we will smile and nod and tell our friends that we "get" the lyrics, thanks to our little Star Trek-themed message board. Doubtlessly.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Tell me why this is a land of confusion... there's not much love to go around...
Oy.
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
I prefer "The Brazilian", but that one doesn't have any lyrics...
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
All I want clarified, Epoch, is how you define "takign advantage". Granted, in Shik's case, something unexpected happened (be it misunderstanding or personality shift or parental wrath), but barring that, this was something long-term...
The age of majority is a silly thing, as I have ranted about elsewhere. 18 is a pretty durn arbitrary age to draw such an important line. I know many people in their 40s and 50s who can't really manage their lives, and many people in their mid-teens who are better-equipped to manage their lives than their own parents.
My fiancee is/was one such case. When we met, I was 24 and she was 13. Her mom introduced us. And -- no exaggeration -- if we hadn't met, she would probably have killed herself by now. We worked through a lot of ugly shit about ourselves and our relationship, all out of our love and commitment to each other. She's become a hell of a lot more comfortable about herself and her ambitions in life since we met, and I applaud her for it.
Granted, not every teenager knows who they are and what they want to do in life, but Jen has known since well before we met, and Shik's now-ex seemed to be equally self-possessed prior to this mess. In his case, I think an ex post facto examination of events might be in order, but in mine... Well, the wedding's set for May 1st, 2004, and has been for a few years now. We very quickly realized that we had been effectively intended for each other, by genetics and temperament if not some higher power.
Now I ask you, am I taking advantage of her? Or would you rather she hook up with someone her own age who has no life experience and whose only interest is to see if he can get into her pants? In the years we've known each other 90% of the guys she's met have been after only one thing, and that thing ain't long-term, let me tell you. Plus, most of the guys she's run into in and around school aren't even remotely on her intellectual or emotional level. I like to think her mom knew what she was doing when she introduced us. *heh*
I understand the desire to protect your charges, but I've seen a lot of cases where that impulse found the wrong target. In the case of me and Jen, well, she's already had to deal with four guys at her high school who couldn't seem to understand the meaning of the word 'no'. Thank God she knows both hockey and tae kwon do...
--Jonah
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
"My fiancee is/was one such case. When we met, I was 24 and she was 13"
You are now 28, and she is 18? And you are engaged?
No judgement passed, clarification's all.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
I like Um Bongo, they drink it in the Congo. . . Oh, no, wait, those weren't the lyrics to "Congo."
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
They can't exactly write the law to say "you can't have sex w/ someone under eighteen, unless you think they seem reasonably mature", can they? Peregrinus, you just pointed out how many people your girlfriend's age are sex-crazed twits. You really think they should abolish the age of consent, so lecherous forty-year-olds can go hump every twelve-year-old who "feels kind of funny down there"?
Posted by Epoch (Member # 136) on :
Exactly, there has to be a line drawn somewhere. And that line has been drawn at 18. Do I believe that a person remains a child until 18 and then they magically know everything they need to. Of course not. Not everyone under the age of 18 is a child and not everyone over the age of 18 is an adult. Whether or not you feel it is right the majority of the population in that area feels that it is wrong.
Peregrinus, I'm not ignorant enough to not believe that people of all ages fall in love. That I do not have a problem with. But until both are above the age of 18 there are legal concerns that need to be regarded. Dating someone under the age of 18 is one thing, having sex with them is a completly different story.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
i like girls
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
That is not a Bad Thing. Right?
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Well, there is the age of consent. One doesn't have to be 18 to have sex. Depending on what state (or, for the rest of the world what country) the age changes. In the current issue of Maxim there's a little snippet that's oh so frequent that says the age of consent in a counter (I forget which) is 10. Mind you, that seems ridiculously low...
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
howls!
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
May seem ridiculous, Chris, but many southeastern European countries' cultures -- especially in rural areas -- have a husband lined up for a girl by the time she's 7 or 8, and usually married off by 10 or 11. One American anthropologist who went over there discovered many of those girls/women had never had their periods, having gotten pregnant before they had a chance to go through their first one, and not getting any breaks. Yeek.
Epoch -- thanks for the clarification. Cool. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of teenagers' existence as individuals, and weren't just regarding them with the sort of blanket condescension I've seen in a lot of adults (who seem to have forgotten their own teen years, and that children are merely small humans and not mental defectives).
TSN -- That wasn't what I was saying at all. I'm just saying that, like many things people tend to take for granted, the age of consent is not some carefully-researched and scientifically-consistent Law of Nature. And that, like all things we have a tendancy to accept dogmatically, it should be examined and challenged to determine its worth and validity.
--Jonah
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
And just think: A few more months, and he'd have been safe.
The AoC in PA is 16.
quote:Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes CRIMES AND OFFENSES (TITLE 18) PART II. DEFINITION OF SPECIFIC OFFENSES. CHAPTER 31. SEXUAL OFFENSES Subchapter B. Definition Of Offenses � 3122.1. Statutory sexual assault. Except as provided in section 3121 (relating to rape), a person commits a felony of the second degree when that person engages in sexual intercourse with a complainant under the age of 16 years and that person is four or more years older than the complainant and the complainant and the person are not married to each other.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
But it was in Maryland, where it's also 16. And they STILL would have pushed it, I bet.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
16 here too, in RI, although if you piss off someone's parents i'm pretty sure you can still get in lotsa trouble. when i was arrested with Asia, i found that if she had been a few months younger i wouldve hada lot more charges.
depends on the parents though, when i was 19, my friend Julie was 14 and i always hung out at her house, parents didn't give a shit. as the world falls apart, the first thing that goes is family structure.. unlucky when you fall for a girl with concerned parents.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: One American anthropologist who went over there discovered many of those girls/women had never had their periods, having gotten pregnant before they had a chance to go through their first one
It's been a while since A-level Biology, but...how exactly does that work then?
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Sperm with camping equipment?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Each cycle, woman is fertile for a relatively set amount of time. (Apparently if she's fertile for much longer than that, it's not very healthy.) When that amount of time ends, she has a period. Repeat ad menopause. So a girl's first period is actually the END of her first fertility cycle.
Of course, I was under the impression that a girl wasn't actually fertile during her first few cycles, but what do I know?
Posted by Epoch (Member # 136) on :
Don't ask me, I got my degree in Science but I spent all of my time in the Geology classes.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Ah yes, geology... A much better course to take than biology. Posted by Nimrod Pimding (Member # 205) on :
Let's see here, female reproductive organs in the one hand, rock layers in the other. Gee, let me think...
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
Neither of them sound good for topics for friendly chatter.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Well, that depends on with whom you're speaking, no?
Posted by DT (Member # 80) on :
Good god almighty! I haven't seen this many malcontents since, well... last time I was here. I'm glad everyone feels like trivial things like the law should be brushed aside willy nilly.
You have sex with a minor, you go to jail. Don't like it? Don't break the law. Don't like the law, work to change it. As Omega put it, the heart is no defense. If it was, I'd have killed Omega long ago. But I didn't, why? I don't want to go to jail.
I'm shocked so many here have come out against the law. Do any of you realize what it would be like without the law? Omega here would be dead, killed by one of us. Wait, that hurts my argument. Well, Simon surely would've been chewed up by now, his spindly frame rotting amidst a pile of Camper Von Beethoven CDs, murdered for his glasses by a myopic marauder. Does anyone want to see that?
And allow me to explain to Liam: see, women bleed from their na-nas every now and then, and babies come from their na-nas!
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
There can be no justice as long as laws are absolute.
Posted by Tora Ziyal (Member # 53) on :
I said Shik was brave because it takes some guts to face legal action and possibility of jail, especially when what he did wasn't essentially wrong (unless you had a sexually repressed Christian upbringing, in which case I'm terribly sorry for you). It was unlawful only in a strictly technical sense...and I don't know why I even bother with this. You can be tried for murder as an adult at 15 but you're not adult enough to have sex? There's something screwed up about that.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
Good Point
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I'd have killed Omega long ago. But I didn't, why? I don't want to go to jail.
How comforting.
There can be no justice so long as laws are absolute.
So long as the laws are just, sure there can. Mind you, I'm not saying I want to live in such a way that forgiveness is disallowed, but since the laws are totally secular, what option to you propose?
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
I don't want Simon to die.
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
I do...
wait, who are we talking about again?
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Sorry, but you can't hope to stand up against the paragon of moral and ethical excellence that is DT. He is the perfect human being, and knows a lot about history too.
And, for those of you with your sarcasm detectors offline, he's a stuck-up cunt who shows his face round here once a year before being collectively told to fuck off. He seems to derive some strange entertainment from the process.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
This thread makes me feel strange.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Down there"?
"...Camper Von Beethoven..."
Was that intentional? Because your misspelling loses the pun entirely.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
quote:Originally posted by DT: Good god almighty! I haven't seen this many malcontents since, well... last time I was here. I'm glad everyone feels like trivial things like the law should be brushed aside willy nilly.
You have sex with a minor, you go to jail. Don't like it? Don't break the law. Don't like the law, work to change it. As Omega put it, the heart is no defense. If it was, I'd have killed Omega long ago. But I didn't, why? I don't want to go to jail.
I'm shocked so many here have come out against the law. Do any of you realize what it would be like without the law? Omega here would be dead, killed by one of us. Wait, that hurts my argument. Well, Simon surely would've been chewed up by now, his spindly frame rotting amidst a pile of Camper Von {sic} Beethoven CDs, murdered for his glasses by a myopic marauder. Does anyone want to see that?
And allow me to explain to Liam: see, women bleed from their na-nas every now and then, and babies come from their na-nas!
There is a difference between considering law beneficial, and considering it infallible. As a whole, the laws of our country are beneficial, as message board posters don't maraud each other's homes, killing at will because of murder laws. Its a strange piece of logic that would derive the conclusion that since one law was good, all of them must be.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
And that all of them must be, from situation to situation, regardless of the circumstances.
--Jonah
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
On the other hand, I'm sure that a good number of people who have broken the law think that they were justified in doing it. That doesn't make it so.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Speaking of controversial laws that fail to account for individual circumstances, how about this one? Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
What individual circumstance is unforseen by that particular bill?
It punishes theft. It does not discriminate by religion, race, sex, age, party, economic class, or any other criteria. It is therefore good.
As I see it, only people who could find it "controversial" are the people who are upset because they won't be allowed to steal anymore.
Of course, since piracy and copyright violation is already illegal, it is a bit redundant, but that's the price we pay for having moral relativists who try to worm their way around "the system" any way they can. Vile creatures.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
In the case of that law, it's so vague that it (seems to) outlaw ANY peer-to-peer file sharing system -- or at least, that's the way I've been reading it in the articles, and at how it may be enforced.
Sure, piracy is piracy and is wrong. Strange as it may seem, I've never participated in any of those kinds of file-sharing programs. But I can think of several other methods and means that could fall under the same qualifications described above and still be "right" in principle.
For instance -- if someone gets a draft version of an upcoming "Enterprise" episode script and posts it on their web page for viewing, they might be liable for $250,000 in damages and several years in prison, should Paramount decide to crack down on it and claim that they're losing money because of the "theft."
My point is that the people who wrote these kinds of laws either did not forsee the extent to which information availability would develop over the Internet, or else were in the back pockets of the various entertainment industry organizations.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Perhaps we should put a vote to the people on whether or not this so-called "piracy" is wrong. Rather than leaving it to corporate-owned legislators.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
I'm all for it, provided that people are informed of every aspect of piracy and the industry's contemptible attempts to combat it. Your average Joe Schmoe, who barely knows how to operate a computer, who has never ventured out to the shadier locations of the digital world (or isn't even aware of their existence), is less likely to be up to speed on the latest copyright developments than veteran information highway goers -- and easily influenced/mislead by said legislators.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
But of course, reason and common sense undoubtedly vanish when love is involved.![[Smile]](smile.gif)