So what does this have to do with ham radio.

"K7JEB" wrote:

I think I'll hang onto the legal convention
of 'innocent until proven guilty' but my
personal grand jury has coughed up an
indictment.


When asking the question in the subject line, I was thinking more alone
the lines of personal opinion than legal guilt or innocence. We're obviously
not a court. The last paragraph had to do with predictions about any
potential court ruling.


"Celebrity Justice" will break into prime-time
and Court-TV will buy CBS.


Interesting prediction. :-)


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

I predict he will be convicted, since this is
the second time he's been involved officially
in this sort of thing. (snip)


I don't know, Mike. Up until the very last few days of the trial, I was
fully convinced O.J. would be found guilty.


As for sentencing, that is a different thing. I think
loonyland has a minimum 3 year sentence per
incident, but envisioning him in a state prison is
hard to do. (snip)


Okay, I'll give my own prediction. Will he be found guilty? Probably not.
If found guilty, how much time will he spend? I agree three years is pushing
it (which is why I doubt he'll be found guilty). But, since three years is
the minimum, he'll have to serve that. But I seriously doubt it will be much
more than that.


Perhaps if it happens, they will try to get him
sent to Juvy?


Someone asked last night on CNN (I think) if he will be tried as an adult
of minor.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Steve Stone" wrote:
So what does this have to do with ham radio.


I'm a ham radio operator and I asked it. I also asked other ham operators.
There's room in this newsgroup for less formal discussions between ham
operators too. The subject line is clear, so you should be able to easily
skip the discussion if you're not interested.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Steve Stone wrote:
So what does this have to do with ham radio.


three

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message thlink.net...
"K7JEB" wrote:

I think I'll hang onto the legal convention
of 'innocent until proven guilty' but my
personal grand jury has coughed up an
indictment.


That's premature, Jackson is not into ejaculating with 12 year old Cancer Patients.

http://jackson.alturl.com

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

As for sentencing, that is a different thing. I think loonyland has a
minimum 3 year sentence per incident, but envisioning him in a state
prison is hard to do. Perhaps if it happens, they will try to get him
sent to Juvy?

That would be just like California...Send a pedophile to juvy.

That would be like sending Richard Speck to Chino Women's
Correctional Facility.

Steve

Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...


As for sentencing, that is a different thing. I think loonyland has a
minimum 3 year sentence per incident, but envisioning him in a state
prison is hard to do. Perhaps if it happens, they will try to get him
sent to Juvy?


That would be just like California...Send a pedophile to juvy.

Ayup!

If he's convicted, the kid's parents should be nailed with something
too. Anyone who allows a pubescent child that a 40 something guy wants
to pick up, take to his amusement park home and hop into bed with the
kid (all those things are widely known) should be held responsible.



That would be like sending Richard Speck to Chino Women's
Correctional Facility.

That would be one way of cutting down on prison population!

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Walton" wrote:

That's premature, Jackson is not into ejaculating
with 12 year old Cancer Patients.


Ejaculation is not required for a conviction. When it comes to children,
even inappropriate fondling or touching is illegal.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

If he's convicted, the kid's parents should be
nailed with something too. Anyone who allows
a pubescent child that a 40 something guy
wants to pick up, take to his amusement park
home and hop into bed with the kid (all those
things are widely known) should be held
responsible. (snip)


I've thought about that too. But, how would we hold them responsible -
stupidity isn't a crime in this country? Letting a child sleep with an adult
is certainly stupid, but we'd have to prove more than that to actually hold
the parents responsible. And I can't think of anything specific in the laws
we can apply to the parents in this case. Child endangerment is the only
thing that comes close, but I don't even think that would fly. To convict,
you'd have to show the parents should have known there was a clear and
present danger. Since JUST sleeping with an adult is not illegal, that may
be a tough case to prove. Anyway, since you said "something" in the first
paragraph (not anything specific), perhaps you're having the same problem
I'm having.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/