Sue Myspace?

The Exile Revan · Post by **The Exile Revan** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:35 am

[QUOTE=dj_venom]Hardly, since her actions didn't endager the child.[/QUOTE]It is her responsibility to teach the daughter to be safe on the internet she failed, she allowed her daughter to get in trouble.

[QUOTE=dj_venom]In actual fact they do, they may not solicit illegal practices etc., additionally they have a social responsibility to prevent such acts from occurring.[/QUOTE]In actual fact YOU are wrong. They did nothing illegal. They did nothing wrong. They have no responsiblity, neither legal nor socially. No one forced that stupid girl to post information that made her a target for that guy. No one forced her to go meet him. The girl, the guy, and the mother are all 100% responsible for the situation, Myspace has 100% no responsibility.

[QUOTE=dj_venom]I'm sure the relevant judicidial system would have a bone to pick with you there.[/QUOTE]Like I have any respect for them, when they stop looking to the rest of the world to support their policy making via the courts and the actual laws of America, talk to me about the courst.

[QUOTE=dj_venom]Already well addressed by Dottie.[/QUOTE]Yes morons who don't protect themselves from the cruelties of the world do deserve whatever fate they get, be it rape, murder, torture, loss of bodily parts, loss of property, whatever it is.

[QUOTE=dj_venom]The point of a lawyer - to represent their client and seek justice.[/QUOTE]Load of crap. The point of lawyers is to get as much money has humanely possible. They just masquerade as representators.They are scum. With the exception of public defenders, they are moronic scum. Prosecutors are the only decent ones.

[QUOTE=dj_venom]Now, if someone has been charged with a crime, surely they deserve to have representation.[/QUOTE]No. Facts presented and nothing else, no speculation, no theories, no bleeding hearts on the stand crying their wittle eyes out. If the facts say the **** is guilty, the **** goes to jail. If it later turns out he ain't, let him go, and he gets nothing for being in jail because he was given due process. Now if someone corrupted the evidence and made him look guilty he is given everything the corrputor of evidence once owned. The corruptor gets killed.

[QUOTE=dj_venom]if someone feels poorly done by, then they have a right to seek damages, and the other group has a right to defend themselves.[/QUOTE]Wrong. If someone IS, NOT FEEL, poorly done by they have a right to seek damages. But they will just have to suffer as the result of the greed of humanity. Remember the phrase about one bad apple ruining it for the rest, applies here.

[QUOTE=dj_venom]And as for the taking of the money, well that makes absolutely no sense to have someone only receive 17% of their compensation. Then to make it fair you'd have to make the compensation much more, and that would then mean the person couldn't pay, and no one would win.[/QUOTE]Your last statement is the sense you can't figure out. The point is to irradicate frivolous lawsuits, someone has to be guilty so lets sue the ones with the most money. Same as suing gun manufacturers because your baby was shot, not the gun manufacturers fault but the moronic judicial system allows it. Same for cigarette companies, judicial system allows morons to sue them even though they started smoking after the warning was put into place. There is example after example of stupid human greed stealing from companies. A frivolous lawsuit is stealing, its criminal, its immoral, its the epitome of everything wrong with the cancer plaguing the Earth.

[QUOTE=dj_venom]Yeah, well I'm interested in studying law, so I have to defend my possible future career choice.

[/QUOTE]I see it now, no better than the rest. Just another money vacuum sucking the money where ever you can no matter what. God forbid you actually earn your money.

[QUOTE=Darzog]The girl didn't get what she deserved, but she was acting very stupid.[/QUOTE]How so? What a person does deserve and doesn't deserve is a direct result of their actions, sometimes it is a consequence, sometimes it is punishment, sometimes it is something good (i.e. an award). Play with a loaded gun and you shoot yourself in the foot, you got what you desereved. Save 3 people from a burning building and the city gives one of those large keys they call the key to the city, you got what you deserved. You shoot a security guard while robbing a bank and you get the death penalty, you got what you deserved. Actions have an equal opposite reaction.

[QUOTE=Darzog]And the mother is also at fault for not monitoring her child's activities (I know she can't control her completely but she can talk to her, explain the risks, etc).[/QUOTE]She may not control her completely but she can monitor and if she has any kind of sense in the tiniest bit she would have installed a program so she could block sites the daugher shouldn't be going to, and set it up where only she knows how to unblock those sites.

[QUOTE=Darzog]And she says that MySpace should be more aggressive inscreening their clients. [/QUOTE]She is a stupid ****, who wants to get money, she'll say anything.

[QUOTE=Darzog]How exactly do you prove to the internet that you are 14 years old? You have a social security number, but that is a VERY BAD way of trying to secure online age verification. You don't have a driver's license, no credit cards (I hope), most likely no passport.... so how can you verify age?[/QUOTE]Expect a new series of companies who soul responbility is to verify a person's age for a nominal yearly fee. They already have one like that for the internet porn industry, they may just branch out to stuff like Myspace. Ain't it a joyous what cancer will do for money.

[QUOTE=Darzog]And while I don't think the girl deserved this, I think that I want to say the mother got what she deserved in having to watch her daughter go through this.[/QUOTE]That isn't what the mother deserved, she deserves to be locked up, maybe have her parental rights taken away, cause she obviously doesn't know how to raise one properly.

[QUOTE=Darzog]*GRR* I hate uninvolved parents!

[/QUOTE]Add stupid greedy bitch parents to that as well.

dj_venom · Post by **dj_venom** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 6:09 am

[QUOTE=The Exile Revan]It is her responsibility to teach the daughter to be safe on the internet she failed, she allowed her daughter to get in trouble.[/QUOTE]
Oh, well that's not a bad idea. While we're at it, let's arrest the guy's parents for making him a criminal. And the neighbours next door, they should have said something. Oh, and his teacher, afterall, a teacher has to teach properly. And aww heck, let's just arrest everyone either of them has ever met. Oh, and we should arrest the people that have met the people they have met too.

Sorry mate, but other people don't get arrested for what someone else did.
[QUOTE=The Exile Revan]In actual fact YOU are wrong. They did nothing illegal. They did nothing wrong. They have no responsiblity, neither legal nor socially. No one forced that stupid girl to post information that made her a target for that guy. No one forced her to go meet him. The girl, the guy, and the mother are all 100% responsible for the situation, Myspace has 100% no responsibility.[/QUOTE]
They don't have a legal one, at least in this point in time, but they do have a social one. You seem to miss the meaning of a social responsibility - that is, a business should support the people that support it. It isn't legally binding, it isn't a tangible level to be measured, it's simply ethics.

At one point in your argument you're saying that the law is ridiculous, and makes pathetic laws. Now you're saying it's right in not having it responsible. Consistency please.
[QUOTE=The Exile Revan]Like I have any respect for them, when they stop looking to the rest of the world to support their policy making via the courts and the actual laws of America, talk to me about the courst.[/QUOTE]
Okay, well I don't get your point here. It could have something to do with sensationalism in the media, but I'm not quite sure what you are saying. Also, it does depend on the legal system, whether it is common law or a code.
[QUOTE=The Exile Revan]Yes morons who don't protect themselves from the cruelties of the world do deserve whatever fate they get, be it rape, murder, torture, loss of bodily parts, loss of property, whatever it is.[/QUOTE]
So, let me get this straight: someone who as a direct result of their genetics, maybe have less cognitive capacity, and therefore should deserve what they get. Saying that you should be treated worse for being different, is really, in my opinion, akin to racism. In that, because of a certain genetic difference, they deserve to be ostracised and mistreated.
[QUOTE=The Exile Revan]Load of crap. The point of lawyers is to get as much money has humanely possible. They just masquerade as representators.They are scum. With the exception of public defenders, they are moronic scum. Prosecutors are the only decent ones.[/QUOTE]
I see you, in your shallow viewpoint, seem to fail to avoid working along stereotypes. In that case, I pity you. Because this dependence on stereotypes will affect all judgement you ever make, and to have prejudice carry such an emphasis on your beliefs is really quite sad.
[QUOTE=The Exile Revan]No. Facts presented and nothing else, no speculation, no theories, no bleeding hearts on the stand crying their wittle eyes out. If the facts say the **** is guilty, the **** goes to jail. If it later turns out he ain't, let him go, and he gets nothing for being in jail because he was given due process. Now if someone corrupted the evidence and made him look guilty he is given everything the corrputor of evidence once owned. The corruptor gets killed.[/QUOTE]
Here is a tip for you: Attend a session of court. Don't just watch Law and Order and think you are a pro. Don't see a news report on something and know the ins and outs. Don't watch a movie and become omnipotent.

To enlighten you, I shall list some of the types of evidence inadmissible in court:
Irrelevant – does it relate to the case in question
Hearsay – a witness speaking about something they didn’t react with
Opinion – only facts, unless you are an expert
Privileged Communications – relationships where evidence cannot be disclosed
Character – part record of this person
Illegal evidence – if it is gained through illegal acts, it is inadmissible

Now, theories is a part of irrelevant info and opinion, bleeding heart would be in character, and speculation would once again be opinion. I'm sorry, but fact and fiction are two very different things.
[QUOTE=The Exile Revan]Wrong. If someone IS, NOT FEEL, poorly done by they have a right to seek damages. But they will just have to suffer as the result of the greed of humanity. Remember the phrase about one bad apple ruining it for the rest, applies here.[/QUOTE]
Generally speaking, argue with facts and logic, not clichés. And they won't have to suffer, as society is intelligent enough to allow people to go for damages. They have suffered, so their claim is justified. And if a cliché would help you understand, then 'what goes around comes around'.
[QUOTE=The Exile Revan]Your last statement is the sense you can't figure out. The point is to irradicate frivolous lawsuits, someone has to be guilty so lets sue the ones with the most money. Same as suing gun manufacturers because your baby was shot, not the gun manufacturers fault but the moronic judicial system allows it. Same for cigarette companies, judicial system allows morons to sue them even though they started smoking after the warning was put into place. There is example after example of stupid human greed stealing from companies. A frivolous lawsuit is stealing, its criminal, its immoral, its the epitome of everything wrong with the cancer plaguing the Earth.[/QUOTE]
Okay, let me fill you in on info. In civil cases (that is when it is plaintiff v. defendant), the justice is decided on balance of probability. Now, the evidence is displayed and the appropriate decision is made. In your example of the gun, the evidence of whether or not they shared the majority of the responsibility is decided. In most cases, they are found innocent and nothing happens. The person who brought the claim then pays the legal costs, and learns their lesson. They will most likely have to pay thousands of dollars, which is to mean two things:
a) deter false claims, as once found false you will have to pay
b) allow people to properly defend themselves due to being innocent, rather than being found guilty for being poor.
So what you suggest is already in effect, except to a more fair standard, as it allows the true claims to be handed out for the person to receive their appropriate amount.
[QUOTE=The Exile Revan]I see it now, no better than the rest. Just another money vacuum sucking the money where ever you can no matter what. God forbid you actually earn your money.[/QUOTE]
Earn: To gain especially for the performance of service, labor, or work
Work: Physical or mental effort or activity directed toward the production or accomplishment of something
[Source: Dictionary.com]
Now, let's place those two together. The work being carried out is defending people, building a case, compiling evidence, determining the relevent sections of the law etc. Now, that is all mental effort (and partly physical if you have to do a bit of leg work), so we've established work does occur. As such, for the performance of the work, you gain money. Therefore, you earn the money for the work carried out, so therefore you do earn money, despite your unfounded statement.

And let me put this question to you: If lawyers are unncessary, and a waste of space, why does society so often call upon their aid?

Someone call the pound, there seems to be an excess of female dogs running around too.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 7:09 am

[QUOTE=The Exile Revan]
Yes morons who don't protect themselves from the cruelties of the world do deserve whatever fate they get, be it rape, murder, torture, loss of bodily parts, loss of property, whatever it is.[/QUOTE]

I understand that is your opinion, what I asked was why. Do you believe that particular idea achieves anything valuable?

snoopyofour · Post by **snoopyofour** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 7:52 am

I don't really understand why this is an issue. Something similiar happens every day, hell every minute, in chatrooms around the world.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 8:27 am

[QUOTE=Exile]Yes morons who don't protect themselves from the cruelties of the world do deserve whatever fate they get, be it rape, murder, torture, loss of bodily parts, loss of property, whatever it is.[/QUOTE]

I do think that people need to assume some responsibility for themselves. Moreover, I'm not sure how MySpace is at fault. Certainly, they could ask for credit card ID and the like before letting people onto the site, but there really is a limit to what they could do when it comes to screening. It's not as though they are going to hand out application forms that have a section which says "If you are sex offender (or a potential sex offender) sign here."
If people who encounter one another there decide to meet, I think it is out of the hands of MySpace.

To bring this scenario closer to home, it would be like if somebody from Game Banshee were to meet another GB member and sued Buck if they ended up raped or otherwise hurt. In my opinion, Buck would not be responsible.

However, Nobody deserves to be raped, not ever! It doesn't matter what the circumstances are. If that girl said "No," and the guy forced her, *he* is at fault, and nobody else.
Even if the girl was misguided in her belief that meeting him would be fine, it does not matter, it does not justify what happened to her, not on any level.

Darzog · Post by **Darzog** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 8:28 am

Hey cool, my first person on the Ignore list! Yeah for me!

And yes, this does happen everyday. Just look at those 20/20 specials... with 1 week of chatting online they get 50+ people to show up in a 24 hour period expecting to molest a minor.

But, look how many people have died in the war for Iraq, how many of them stand out as high profile deaths? Cindy Sheehan made her son's death a huge deal because she forced her way into the limelight, this is the same thing.. Granted, I think Sheehan is dishonouring her son's memory and beliefs and is an attention-whore, but that's another discussion.

DesR85 · Post by **DesR85** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 9:06 am

Well, I hope this story will serve as a reminder for people to be careful when surfing social sites or going online for that matter. Who knows what problems will arise if you're not careful. That's the best advice so far.

EDIT: Deleted a silly question. Sorry for the inconvenience.

JonIrenicus · Post by **JonIrenicus** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 9:32 am

[QUOTE=The Exile Revan]Yes morons who don't protect themselves from the cruelties of the world do deserve whatever fate they get, be it rape, murder, torture, loss of bodily parts, loss of property, whatever it is.[/QUOTE]

Looks like I'm not the real exile here :laugh: .

Wisdom comes with time. 14 year old years are too trusting, they are young, what do you expect? Actually I have found girls that get raped once tend to get raped over and over again. They fall into a pattern and they may never get out of it. Do they deserve this? Hell no. No one deserves this so called "fate." They deserve help and a guide. They deserve a real relationship and deserve getting made love to, not forced but a natural healthy way.

Should we open all the prisons and let those people go wild. Then many people will get what they "deserve" by *your* standards. You say something wrong and BAM you get murdered, is that what you deserve? That is prison rules not civilized society.

[QUOTE=dragon wench]However, Nobody deserves to be raped, not ever! It doesn't matter what the circumstances are. If that girl said "No," and the guy forced her, *he* is at fault, and nobody else.[/QUOTE]

Just as many guys get raped as girls, believe it or not.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:12 am

[QUOTE=JonIrenicus]Just as many guys get raped as girls, believe it or not.[/QUOTE]

I definitely wasn't suggesting otherwise, I was just referring to this specific incident

Yes.. I know this happens. Men get raped by other men, or they get raped by women. The latter is especially contentious, I seem to recall there was some discussion on the subject here recently, but I don't remember the thread.

JonIrenicus · Post by **JonIrenicus** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:17 am

You know how you can say "NO!" to bullies as much as you like, but all they understand is physical language. Sometimes you just have to phycially say no for them to understand (like any animal or dog). If all else fails buy a taser :laugh:

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:33 am

[QUOTE=JonIrenicus]You know how you can say "NO!" to bullies as much as you like, but all they understand is physical language. Sometimes you just have to phycially say no for them to understand (like any animal or dog). If all else fails buy a taser :laugh:[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

But joking aside, 14-year-old girls do not generally carry around tasers, and if they are smaller and physically weaker than their attackers..... their options are limited. I suppose that people who feel vulnerable could carry around pepper spray, but that is illegal in many places. And, as is the case with any kind of a weapon, the danger is that it can be used *against* the person carrying it, making a dangerous situation even more dangerous.

The best solution, IMO, is martial arts. Obviously, that is no guarantee, but if you are able to skillfully employ your own body as a weapon, it is unlikely to be used against you.

And now we've gotten really far off topic..

Sorry Fiona

mr_sir · Post by **mr_sir** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:41 am

The girl was definately acting naive and a bit stupid by meeting the guy, but as others have said, she was only 14. 14 year olds are still kids, no matter how grown up they feel. Saying she deserved to be raped is like saying a 3 year old deserved to be raped because she let her attacker gain her trust. There is no way anyone deserves to be raped, and saying its her own fault for being too trusting is (IMO) stupid. I don't think MySpace are responsible as there is not a lot they can do except restrict membership to over 18s only and ask for credit cards as age verification. This still has its problems though as just because you are 18 it does not mean you have a credit card, and kids could just get hold of their parent's credit cards and use those (with or without their parents' knowledge/consent). I also don't think the parents' can be held responsible as they may have tried to teach their daughter of the dangers, but being a typical 14 year old she could have refused to listen as teenagers, in general, like to feel they are grown up and can look after themselves. It is also not the girl's fault as she was taken advantage of by a sick, twisted man. The only one who is responsible is the man that sexually abused her and the only deterrant for that is to make sentences a lot harsher for stuff like that. I don't know what the laws are like in the US but not long ago, here in the UK, a man was given only 6 years for abducting and raping a 3 year old kid. That is the problem. He will be out on parole in 3 years. He should be given a life sentence for something like that as 3 years in prison is hardly a deterrant to someone like that. 25 years in prison and not put in a special wing for his own safety would be more of a deterrant as his life in prison would be pure hell after committing a crime like that and being put in the main prison wing.

JonIrenicus · Post by **JonIrenicus** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:44 am

[QUOTE=dragon wench]The best solution, IMO, is martial arts. Obviously, that is no guarantee, but if you are able to skillfully employ your own body as a weapon, it is unlikely to be used against you.

And now we've gotten really far off topic..

Sorry Fiona

[/QUOTE]

You don't even need to have martial art skills, you just have to know the weak spots (groin, eyes, nose, throat, back, and side of chest). \

The best defense of all, is how you look. If your head is up high and you look like one tough ***** no one is going to mess with you. Remember they look for easy targets and if you look like you are not easy, they will go after someone that is.

And I just think the topic evolved.

Fiona · Post by **Fiona** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 11:20 am

[QUOTE=mr_sir],but not long ago, here in the UK, a man was given only 6 years for abducting and raping a 3 year old kid. That is the problem. He will be out on parole in 3 years. He should be given a life sentence for something like that as 3 years in prison is hardly a deterrant to someone like that. 25 years in prison and not put in a special wing for his own safety would be more of a deterrant as his life in prison would be pure hell after committing a crime like that and being put in the main prison wing.[/QUOTE]

Just a wee point, Mr Sir. If we are talking about the same case, he did get life. This tabloid approach to the facts bedevils this issue and I do think it is important to understand what happened. As I understand it, on the back of exactly the kind of demand for tougher sentences which you repeat, the government took discretion away from the courts and imposed mandatory sentences.At the same time they introduced binding guidance on how those sentences should be mitigated, for example giving credit for an early admission of guilt thus saving a lot of money and court time. The judge had very little choice in the matter: and the fact that he is eligible to be considered for parole in a few years does not by any stretch of the imagination mean he will get it.

Lestat · Post by **Lestat** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:14 pm

Just one point that nobody covered, not even the article:

So this guy earns this girls trust up to a certain point... and then they go on to meet IRL. Where did they meet that the guy could sexually assault her? Or did repeated meetings take place before the actual assault or did they go to some place where they initially met?

I see two possibilities:
A. They met in a public space and continued meeting until they ended up in a more private/secluded situation where the assault could take place.
B. They met right from the start in a private/secluded situation.

In case A, the owners of the public space carry as much responsibility as myspace, but nobody in his right mind is going to sue a bar owner if they met a person in that bar that was later to sexually assault them. So I don't see why myspace should be sued.

As far as case B goes: sorry, but if I'm gonna meet any of you IRL for the first time, it will be in a public space and/or accompanied, for your sake and my sake.

As another aside: would they sue the mail service if this had happened after a mail correspondence, which would have been just as likely? I think that internet services provide even more supervision & screening in these kind of situations than other ways of communication (mail, e-mail,...). This is of course counterbalanced by the fact that they also multiply the possible contacts. If this wasn't the internet, this case would be seen for what it is: ridiculous (note that I'm talking about the sueing of myspace, not about the sexual assault).

mr_sir · Post by **mr_sir** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:31 pm

[QUOTE=Fiona]Just a wee point, Mr Sir. If we are talking about the same case, he did get life. This tabloid approach to the facts bedevils this issue and I do think it is important to understand what happened. As I understand it, on the back of exactly the kind of demand for tougher sentences which you repeat, the government took discretion away from the courts and imposed mandatory sentences.At the same time they introduced binding guidance on how those sentences should be mitigated, for example giving credit for an early admission of guilt thus saving a lot of money and court time. The judge had very little choice in the matter: and the fact that he is eligible to be considered for parole in a few years does not by any stretch of the imagination mean he will get it.[/QUOTE]

It probably is the same case. I knew there was a lot of fuss being made but I didn't realise they had actually changed his sentence. As for the parole, even without that, his initial sentence was still too low in my opinion so I'm glad its been changed. Personally I feel that sexual crimes against children are the worst crime there is, even worse than murder, as it will affect that child for the rest of their lives. I know the same can be said for any sexual assualt, but to me (sexual assault is always serious) it is even worse if its against someone who is particularly vulnerable such as a child or a mentally disabled person and therefore they should get life as a mandatory sentence. If you get life for murder then why not get life for doing something that will affect the victim's relationships and their lifestyle for as long as they live (as I'm sure its not something they could ever fully come to terms with).

Darzog · Post by **Darzog** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:33 pm

My understanding of the situation is that the 19-yr old guy picked her up from school and they went to have lunch. "[url="http://www.lyricsfreak.com/s/sublime/date+rape_20133034.html"]That's when things got out of control[/url]".

sorry, couldn't help it.

JonIrenicus · Post by **JonIrenicus** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:27 pm

Read my first post on page one -,-

The Exile Revan · Post by **The Exile Revan** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:38 pm

[QUOTE=dj_venom]Sorry mate, but other people don't get arrested for what someone else did.[/QUOTE]You wouldn't get it.

She is being arrested for endangering her child.

[QUOTE=dj_venom]They don't have a legal one, at least in this point in time, but they do have a social one.[/QUOTE]Social responsibility is garbage, plain and simple. They have one responsibility provide a product and/or service that people want that is all.

[QUOTE=dj_venom]Consistency please.[/QUOTE]Obtain a brain please.

[QUOTE=dj_venom]Okay, well I don't get your point here. It could have something to do with sensationalism in the media, but I'm not quite sure what you are saying. Also, it does depend on the legal system, whether it is common law or a code.[/QUOTE]You really do know nothing. Media has nothing to do with it fool. Its all about Liberal (aka Communist) Judges who want to make policy from the bench, they use the everyone in Europe is doing it approach to justify making rulings that have absolutely no basis on American law.

[QUOTE=dj_venom]So, let me get this straight: someone who as a direct result of their genetics, maybe have less cognitive capacity, and therefore should deserve what they get. Saying that you should be treated worse for being different, is really, in my opinion, akin to racism. In that, because of a certain genetic difference, they deserve to be ostracised and mistreated.[/QUOTE]I knew some Liberal Swine was going to play racist card. Hello fool, morons are stupid because they choose to be, RETARDS are born that way. Learn your facts ****.

[QUOTE=dj_venom]I pity you.[/QUOTE]Woopie ****ing do. Pity me all you want, slimeball.

[QUOTE=dj_venom]Here is a tip for you: Attend a session of court. Don't just watch Law and Order and think you are a pro.[/QUOTE]Why would I watch such ludicrous bull****.

[QUOTE=dj_venom]I'm sorry, but fact and fiction are two very different things.[/QUOTE]No duh, Sherlock.

[QUOTE=dj_venom]society is intelligent[/QUOTE]You are sadly mistaken, society is made up of morons. Common Sense and Intelligence are alien to 99% of the population.

[QUOTE=dj_venom]In most cases, they are found innocent and nothing happens.[/QUOTE]Idiot.

[QUOTE=dj_venom]So what you suggest is already in effect, except to a more fair standard, as it allows the true claims to be handed out for the person to receive their appropriate amount.[/QUOTE]You are so ****ing uninformed, it's sad.

[QUOTE=dj_venom]Now, let's place those two together. The work being carried out is defending people, building a case, compiling evidence, determining the relevent sections of the law etc.[/QUOTE]None of that earns anyone money. Especially in a civil case.

[QUOTE=dj_venom]Now, that is all mental effort (and partly physical if you have to do a bit of leg work), so we've established work does occur.[/QUOTE]Nope, you have not.

[QUOTE=dj_venom]As such, for the performance of the work, you gain money.[/QUOTE]Only thing performed is the theft of money.

[QUOTE=dj_venom]Therefore, you earn the money for the work carried out, so therefore you do earn money, despite your unfounded statement.[/QUOTE]Yeah you "earn" it.

[QUOTE=dj_venom]If lawyers are unncessary, and a waste of space, why does society so often call upon their aid?[/QUOTE]Society is ruled by morons, they are to stupid to know better.

[QUOTE=dj_venom]Someone call the pound, there seems to be an excess of female dogs running around too.

[/QUOTE]Why do morons always insist upon talking about themselves.

[QUOTE=Dottie]I understand that is your opinion, what I asked was why. Do you believe that particular idea achieves anything valuable?[/QUOTE]Who said anything about value? I certainly didn't. Sure doesn't achieve in value the way it currently is.

[QUOTE=dragon wench]If people who encounter one another there decide to meet, I think it is out of the hands of MySpace.[/QUOTE]It is 100% out of their hands what they do off the website isn't endorsed nor known by the owners and operators of Myspace.

[QUOTE=dragon wench]However, Nobody deserves to be raped, not ever! It doesn't matter what the circumstances are. If that girl said "No," and the guy forced her, *he* is at fault, and nobody else.[/QUOTE]Was she stupid enough to meet a guy off the internet without some kind of percaution to protect herself? Yes, she got what was coming to her.
Was her mother stupid enough to let her daughter do as she pleased on the internet? Looks like it, she endangered child and that is illegal.
Was the guy older than the girl he ****ed? Yes, that is a crime. Did she do it willingly? Apparently not, that is a crime.
All parties involved that are not Myspace are cullpable.

Fallenhero · Post by **Fallenhero** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:49 pm

A point about Martial Arts and self defense. While I would recommend it to everyone, with the right dojo/sensei, a few years of physical training wouldn't have helped that girl if she was foolish enough to meet that man. One sucker punch or a sharp blade and it would all be over. But training at a good dojo might have given her the self confidence to avoid the meeting altogether.

That is where martial arts has it's true worth. My Sensei always said the best self defense move on the streets of NYC is to bring your hand up across your face, stretch it high and shout TAXI