T1B

Moving Sale wrote:Since you can't use your def in a sentence like and asked and can only point to the law to back up your position when my position all along has been that the law has perverted the word you might want to back off on calling 'bode so quickly.

First of all, congratulations on constructing such a poorly worded sentence. Is this how you speak in the courtroom? To quote Sam Jackson, "English, do you speak it mother fucker?" I did use the word violence in the sentence as quoted by your precious Oxford dictionary. The fact that you seem incapable of reading or comprehending English is your issue. Now, if you need me to make up a sentence, here you go..."Hey midget, I'm gonna whup a medieval violent beatdown on your tiny ass!" There, is that better?

The law has not perverted the word, the dictionary has not perverted the word, you just want to be stubborn and argumentative like any useless lawyer.

Go chase an ambulance shorty and take a reading class.

As for what good it does to put away a DUI killer, it does some good in that it provides some level deterent to others and it sure as hell provides it to the dude locked away. Personally, I'd like to see the penalty for this crime be severe restitution. Basically make it so that you become a fukking slave to the dead man's family. I would lock the fukke away if he continued to drive and drive.

Moving Sale wrote: A) try using your def in a sentence about a crime without harming anyone physically

Nice Dodge asshat.

Moving Sale wrote:

Moving Sale wrote: A) try using your def in a sentence about a crime without harming anyone physically

Nice Dodge asshat.

Interesting. You quote yourself and call yourself an asshat. Yet another example of midget-brained brilliance.

Though, just to be clear, for the remedial reading level impaired dwarf, the sentence in question was used correctly, as requested and filled the parameters of the definition.

We understand that you redefine violence every time you slime your way into a courtroom, to defend a drunk driver who's plowed over a group of children as having committed a non-violent action, due to it being the automobiles fault and not the lush. "Yes your honor, the driver didn't kill the kids, even though he was impaired, it was the out-of-control vehicle that is to blame. My defendant never touched those children and dammit, they shouldn't have jumped out of the street and onto the safety of the sidewalk anyway."

Pathetic.

Yes I was posting to myself and not calling you out. Yea that's it. Good gawd.

Post the fucking sentence or stand down.

mvscal wrote:His family situation is irrelevant. Criminals leave families behind all the time.

Not sure if you're commenting on DUI guy or thread guy. (Hard to sift through all the shit in some of these threads... errrr.. most of them...)
DUI guy, I get it...fukk him...Most of these pukes have committed this act of selfishness far more times than anyone can imagine before getting caught, or killing an innocent victim(s).

Thread guy established family after stupid moment, and apparently had no relapes for 13 years. All the while hiding in plan sight.
And "seemingly" a good family at that.

Again, may have missed your intent.

The fact that he has been a good boy needs to be considered, but does not get him off. The state dropping the ball all these years is a larger consideration. They sentenced him to 13 years and told him to standby until they got him a bed. He did. They then fukked off you the full amount of time and then expect to start the clock? That is kind of like sentencing him to 26 years.

mvscal wrote:This is not a library fine.

Thank goodness for that, or orcinus would have been on the horn to him.

Hi, orc!

:wink:

smackaholic wrote:The fact that he has been a good boy needs to be considered, but does not get him off. The state dropping the ball all these years is a larger consideration. They sentenced him to 13 years and told him to standby until they got him a bed. He did. They then fukked off you the full amount of time and then expect to start the clock? That is kind of like sentencing him to 26 years.

The solution here is obvious.

Mr. Anderson goes about his life -- and the "fat, stupid union slob" (as mvscal called him/her) who fugged this thing up begins serving the 13 year sentence.

poptart wrote:

Mr. Anderson goes about his life -- and the "fat, stupid union slob" (as mvscal called him/her) who fugged this thing up begins serving the 13 year sentence.

best suggested solution I've read.....

Cornhusker wrote:Thread guy established family after stupid moment, and apparently had no relapes for 13 years. All the while hiding in plan sight.
And "seemingly" a good family at that.

Again, may have missed your intent.

My "intent" is...so what? I don't give a fuck if he has a family or not. It doesn't matter.

smackaholic wrote:The state dropping the ball all these years is a larger consideration.

Larger consideration but entirely seperate from the 13 years owed by Mr. Convicted Armed Robber Who Never Served a Day Behind Bars.

mvscal wrote: You are confusing bodily injury with violence. Rape doesn't necessarily cause bodily injury. Would rape victim have to have her face smashed in for it to count as a violent crime?

Rape is intercourse without consent so there is no necessity for violence to be found guilty of a rape. Rape is a crime of power but not always a crime of violence no matter what the feminist movement (and others) may tell you.

mvscal wrote:I don't give a fuck if he has a family or not. It doesn't matter.

It matters.

Moving Sale wrote:Yes I was posting to myself and not calling you out. Yea that's it.

Yes, we can all see that, you don't need to call yourself out for a second time, once was more than sufficient.

Rape is intercourse without consent so there is no necessity for violence to be found guilty of a rape. Rape is a crime of power but not always a crime of violence no matter what the feminist movement (and others) may tell you.

Does that include the FBI as well? In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.

In addition, according to the State of California Department of Justice, "rape is one of the most dehumanizing crimes of violence."

Are you really certain you want to continue embarrassing yourself with your own ignorance? How the fuck can you call yourself a lawyer when you don't even know your own laws? Care to cite ANY example of rape not being a crime of violence?

I have come to the conclusion that Moving Sale/TVO is not an attorney. He is just nowhere near literate enough to have passed any state bar. He is, first and foremost, an internet troll. His entire purpose here is to piss people off, to generate animosity to his persona. What better profession to choose than lawyer. Everyone hates lawyers.

So what is his profession? Has to be a job common in California that doesn’t pay that well, hence his bitterness. Barista? No, he couldn’t see over the counter. Taxi driver? No, he couldn’t reach the pedals. Shoe salesman? Bingo.

There's a first time for everything:

Rack the ever living fuck outta' Goobs, wax job not withstanding.

Goober McTuber wrote: Barista? No, he couldn’t see over the counter.

He could manage with drywaller's stilts

Yes Jay from Dumbsville I know that the government thinks violence can happen without anybody getting physically harmed. That has been my whole point from day one so you posting more examples of the government calling a crime violent when nobody was physically harmed is only proving my point.

Now post a sentence using your definition of violence about a crime without anybody being physically harmed or STFU.


Goob,
Go ahead and post as to why you have a problem with my English please. This should be interesting.

Moving Sale wrote:Goob,
Go ahead and post as to why you have a problem with my English please. This should be interesting.

English? I have difficulty understanding whatever language it is that you are using, but I seriously doubt that it's English.

In other words you got nothing and you are just blowing smoke out of your ass.

Moving Sale wrote:Now post a sentence using your definition of violence about a crime without anybody being physically harmed or STFU.

A woman being raped is an act of physical violence, while a threat of rape is an implied act of violence.

Both are punishable crimes of violence.

There midget, done and done.

You do not have to physically touch somebody to commit a violent act. That is the law and just because you choose to redefine it for your own stupid purposes, doesn't make it so.

Now fuck off.

Moving Sale wrote:In other words you got nothing and you are just blowing smoke out of your ass.

There are countless examples of your butchery of the English language. You can find them here.

Oh, and what do have for Chukka boots in a 12 D?

Jay in Phoenix wrote: A woman being raped is an act of physical violence...

So a slutty 17yo spreading her pussy for a 25 yo John is an act of violence. Nice take idiot.

What you know about the criminal justice system would fit in a thimble.

Goober McTuber wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:In other words you got nothing and you are just blowing smoke out of your ass.

There are countless examples of your butchery of the English language. You can find them here.

Oh, and what do have for Chukka boots in a 12 D?

So in other words you got nothing. Your shit take has been noted.

Moving Sale wrote:So a slutty 17yo spreading her pussy for a 25 yo John is an act of violence.

No. Fuck no.

Once again, Midget Slime has taken illogic, illegality and morality into the Twilight Zone of his own personal dementia.

Rape, either as a physical act or a threat, is a crime of violence.

A woman, or in your perversion, a girl who voluntarily engages in a sex act, has done so of her own accord.

Rape is rape. A crime of involuntary violence.

Are you really sick enough to equate a voluntary act of sexual congress with the violence and brutality of rape?

That IS exactly what you just suggested.

Seriously freak, go impale your bald, pin shaped head on an eagle-clawed flag pole, you steaming pile of shit.

Do the world a favor and die already.

A 17 yo cannot (in most places) consent to sex therefore it is rape you hideously stupid fuck.

Moving Sale wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:In other words you got nothing and you are just blowing smoke out of your ass.

There are countless examples of your butchery of the English language. You can find them here.

Oh, and what do have for Chukka boots in a 12 D?

So in other words you got nothing. Your shit take has been noted.

Nothing? I was spot fucking on, you tedious fucknozzle.

I thought being able to put together something close to a logical statement would be required of folks in moving fail's alleged vocation.

First off, in most jurisdictions, consensual sex at 17 is not statutory rape. I believe the typical age is 16. And even if it is, we are not talking about legal definitions. We are talking about whether or not threatening a woman to have sex against her will is a violent act. Anyone with any brain activity north of the medula oblongata will agree.

Moving Sale wrote:A 17 yo cannot (in most places) consent to sex therefore it is rape you hideously stupid fuck.

You really love to spin, you fat little top. The example of the 17 year old girl was your example. I was citing rape as an act of violence, regardless of age, race or any other non-factor. On top of this, I never said a 17 year old engaging in sex was or wasn't rape, simpleton. That was you, once again, ignoring the logical, ignoring the law, ignoring what was written and spin, spin, spinning out whatever nonsense burbles up out of your water-logged pea-brain.

Rape or the threat of rape is a crime of violence, end of fucking story.

Now go soak your bald head in a bucket of gasoline and light a match.

So your take is the 17 yo in my example was raped and it wasn't violent but rape is still always violent. What do you do for a living because if it's any harder than "would you like to super size" you are getting fired for incompetency very soon.

Spinning Top wrote:So your take is the 17 yo in my example was raped and it wasn't violent but rape is still always violent. What do you do for a living because if it's any harder than "would you like to super size" you are getting fired for incompetency very soon.

No, YOUR take was the 17 yo was engaging in sex and she was a slut. If it was an act of rape, then it was an act of violence.

The legal take and law is rape or a threat of rape is an act of violence.

Which part of any of this is confusing you, dipshit.

It was an act of rape alright because she is too young to give consent. Why don't you point out the violent aspect of it?

rape1 [reyp]
noun
1.
the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2.
any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
3.
statutory rape.
4.
an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
5.
Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force.
verb (used with object), raped, rap·ing.
6.
to force to have sexual intercourse.
7.
to plunder (a place); despoil.
8.
to seize, take, or carry off by force.
verb (used without object), raped, rap·ing.
9.
to commit rape.

Just because you're so unclear as to what rape is Midget. By any definition, rape is a crime of VIOLENCE, no matter what the situation is, including the threat of rape. Statutory rape is one of the vilest forms of rape. Violence personified. Just as you are stupid personified.

By this point, you know this, so just quit trolling. Enough already, move the fuck on.

You are the one stupid enough to call a 17 yo slut the victim of a violent crime and I'm trolling?
Once again, please point out the violent aspect of the case I posted.

Last time asshole, in the example you cited, YOU called the girl a slut, not me. That makes the stupid person you, by your own admission.

I've pointed out the violent aspect many times now, cited sources both via dictionaries and legal, including your own state.

Just like subjectivity in the other thread, the definition is obvious. You are oblivious.

Drop the act, quit trolling, stop feigning niceness to the people at the troll stop and shove it all up your midget ass.

Buh bye.

If it is so obvious then you should be able to point out the violent aspect of the example I cited.

I have, multiple times now.

Perhaps a second lobotomy is in order for you, as the first one clearly didn't take. You're still breathing, reciting idiotic nonsense and mashing submit over and over with your gnarled little knuckles while droning on into infinity.

It's sad, but still amusing, in a pathetic sort of way.

Go ahead and repeat your question Bilbo. The answer is still the same as it always was.

The white flag you're waving however is burning from overuse.

Is Moving Sale defending sex with minors?

Carson wrote:Is Moving Sale defending sex with minors?

How else would he find a partner who doesn't tower over him.

Recognizing this horse can't really get any deader, let me see if I can explain in simple English what seems to be eluding everyone.

MS is trying to draw a distinction between plain English & legalese. The "use it in a sentence" approach is a pretty lame way to illustrate the point. To perhaps oversimplify what I believe he's trying to say, in plain English, violence requires ACTUAL unwanted physical contact intended to cause harm. If I make no physical contact with you or do not contact you with a weapon, by this definition, I have not committed a violent act. Legalese includes the THREAT OF (potential) violence. In plain English, there is most certainly a difference between actual and potential. They are NOT the same. This distinction is blurred as far as the law is concerned - potential IS the same as actual regarding the legal definition of violence. This is what I believe he was trying to convey when he said:

threats of violence equate to actual violence. It's a trick that lawyers who write these codes use all the time.

So in plain English, actual and potential are not the same. In legalese, they are the same, at least as far as violence is defined. The law defines armed robbery as a violent act. If I point a gun at you but don't pull the trigger or otherwise physically contact or harm you, I have not been violent per the plain English definition, but I have been by the legal definition. Regarding statutory rape, minors are considered legally incapable of consenting to sex. But we all know that teenagers know what they want and what they don't want. If an underage girl wants to have sex with an adult and goes through with it, the sexual contact that ensues is not unwanted and is not violent by the plain English definition. But since she is legally incapable of consent and rape is considered violent, statutory rape is legally defined as a violent act. (Not defending sex with minors, just focusing on the semantics.)

MS suggests using the OED definitions of violence to illustrate his point. While intimidation is not included as part of the plain English definition, it is included in the legal definition. The primary definition of violence in the OED is "Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something." The "Law" definition in the OED is "The unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force."

Hope this helps. To kill this thread.