It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Adultery charge a first in Genesee County

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 03:54 AM
link   
Hmm.. Church law in action.. Yet the same people condemn islamic sharia law.. Once again sanctimonious hypocrites in action..




posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


"Old School" as in I just chuckled at your entire post.

I don't think I ever said anything about not divorcing the woman if I was in the husband's shoes here. I also don't see any need to produce data supporting what is common knowledge... divorce rates and sexually transmitted diseases have escalated tremendously over the past few decades. Alongside that escalation has been a steady movement to "civilize" American males, stripping them of traits like possessiveness and adopting zero tolerance policies towards fighting and agressive behavior.

Can I prove a correlation here? Nope, sure can't. Infidelity rates from 40 or 50 years ago would be subjective at best, considering the variable would be honesty in survey samples. However, the logic behind my theory does stand up to the culture of the era.

I wouldn't be on the "other end" of this scenario because I kept it in my pants until I knew what I needed to know about whatever woman I was dating. After a certain number of dates, the thinking neanderthal has usually managed to see the inside of his date's home, met some of her friends, seen some photo albums which indicate her relationship status, and knows more about her than just "Uh, woman smell good and have nice boobs, me ready."

Ironic that this stone aged man with his fancies towards Earth being the center of the universe and making fire with sticks actually has a better grasp on not just morality, but also common sense than does the modern, "enlightened" man.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 04:22 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Thanks. I know that state laws vary by state. I am not sure how Florida law applies to a crime being prosecuted in New York but thanks.

I was simply explaining that is varies by state, and that possibly they don't have as strict of laws up there as it is not as big a problem as it is compared to somewhere like Florida. Here we have to have strict laws on the books, because places like Florida seem to attract these types of problems with some frequency.


Originally posted by K J Gunderson
That does not really answer my question. If the punishments are available but not enforced, the answer is more laws and more prosecution?

You ever consider that they pressed those charges knowing full well the press would pick up on them and cause these two embarrassment, or bring harsher public opinion against what they did?


Originally posted by K J Gunderson
How about cutting out plea deals? The judge is not obligated to cut any deal at all.

Its not the judge who normally enters the plea deal, it’s the defense attorney, and sometimes the states prosecuting attorney.


Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Relax, I did not blame you for her charge. I expressed what I got from what you wrote.

I was simply stating why they most likely pressed those charges, I was not approving or disapproving of them either way, so I do not understand why you seem so upset about what I stated.


Originally posted by K J Gunderson
I did not say it was not the case. I said it was stupid. What you are claiming is the there is a chance the jury would hear she was having sex in public and let her off easy but then when they heard other charges, they would feel differently about the sex in public and punish her more.

They normally stack so that the person either cannot plea out of all of the charges, or there will be at least one a jury will find for.


Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Either the sex in public was wrong and there is a good punishment for it or not. To just add nonsense crimes on top of it is a waste of time and money -mine!

Well its what they do in all arrests, not just this one. No point is arguing this with me, I have law enforcement friends who have explained this to me many times over the years. Its like death and taxes, its just a fact that it is what it is.


Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Don't count your chickens, it ain't over yet. Trust me, New York is more than happy to toss anyone on that list they can get their hands on.

See, I didn't know that they even had that on the books up there, so maybe that will end up applying to them as well. It all depends on what laws are on the books that they can be charged with at the time of their arrest. I am very familiar with Florida state statues because one of my law enforcement friends gives me his hardcopy of them every year when he gets the next years book.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


"Old School" as in I just chuckled at your entire post.


Well good. It was written in the spirit of fun debate and not malice. I have a feeling that is not why you chuckled though.


I don't think I ever said anything about not divorcing the woman if I was in the husband's shoes here.


Oh, well that makes beating up the other guy make plenty of sense now. Silly me.


I also don't see any need to produce data supporting what is common knowledge... divorce rates and sexually transmitted diseases have escalated tremendously over the past few decades.


That is not what I want proof of. I want to see data showing a correlation between that rise and the converse curve of violent reactions to infidelity.

That was the actual claim.


Alongside that escalation has been a steady movement to "civilize" American males, stripping them of traits like possessiveness and adopting zero tolerance policies towards fighting and agressive behavior.


What you see as the feminization of American men does not exactly prove that there has been a decrease in violent retaliation toward the lovers of wayward spouses corresponding the rise in divorce and STDs.

I am certain a smart person like you would not say something like that if you did not have some basis in reality for it. I am just wondering where that is. Theories about what is happening to men does not show me the rates of assault for cheating over time comparable to metrics used for divorce and STD propagation. Can you?



Can I prove a correlation here? Nope, sure can't.


Ah. Just saying stuff. Like I said, tossing crap at a wall to see what sticks. What else is saying something you have no facts or data to actually confirm for you? That is what is called a wild guess. Wild guesses can be greatly interesting and entertaining but defending them as if real all while admitting inability to prove it seems odd to me.


Infidelity rates from 40 or 50 years ago would be subjective at best, considering the variable would be honesty in survey samples. However, the logic behind my theory does stand up to the culture of the era.


How so? Back then women had it much harder getting divorced and could be beaten to death by their husbands. I bet that helped keep infidelity rates down as well. Back then, the woman stayed home more raising the kids while the men went to work. This kept men and women pretty far apart until they were home with their spouses again. There was not the vast intermingling there is today. Think that effected infidelity rates? I imagine if I try at all, I can come up with a long list of things that were different that would all apply and not one would be the concept that men beat up the other guy more. Are my ideas less valid than yours?


I wouldn't be on the "other end" of this scenario because I kept it in my pants until I knew what I needed to know about whatever woman I was dating.


It was a hypothetical situation. Do you know what that is? The point was a thought exercise to arrive at an answer empathetic to those on the receiving end. People make mistakes and there are women who lie. If your ego is too big to allow you think about a situation and come to a logical conclusion using your own sensibilites, then I am not sure why you would be in a forum instead of hosting a blog.


After a certain number of dates, the thinking neanderthal has usually managed to see the inside of his date's home, met some of her friends, seen some photo albums which indicate her relationship status, and knows more about her than just "Uh, woman smell good and have nice boobs, me ready."


Oh, I did not realize what a civilized saintly person you were. I guess when you were talking about wanting to beat up an innocent person that slipped past me.




Ironic that this stone aged man with his fancies towards Earth being the center of the universe and making fire with sticks actually has a better grasp on not just morality, but also common sense than does the modern, "enlightened" man.


Seriously? Beating up innocent people is what moral people do? Silly me, here I am getting to know women before I sleep with them as well as not beating up people that never heard of me. How can I learn to be as moral as you?



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Violater1

I would be holding her hand like I would be holding a burning coal!


for the benefit of the serious ATSers who do like to consider all the facts before casting judgement, like any good american christian is taught, and for the sake of integrity of this thread's subject matter......

what is the specific number of manditory expectations a citizen must adhere to in order to comply with all the laws?

please provide a number of all the local, state, and federal laws these two individuals, and yourself, are required by law to follow. I think we should also take all these laws into account when judging them.

a number, please? the specific number of laws, please.

i only ask because currently my fair share of the national debt is in the tens of thousands, and will only be higher for children born in our future.

And since the national debt is also my responsibility, i'm not sure if i want my tax dollars spent incarcerating Suzanne M. Corona for what she had in her own vagina, and Justin Amend for where he put his penis, so long as both were willing participants.

i'm only speaking as to the charges and laws that dictate what a person can do with his or her own body. not necessarily addressing
where they did it or the other circumstances. like i said, if you are going to start considering the circumstances, please provide a number of laws they were subject to at the time.

Heck, if you don't know the number of laws you are currently subject to, don't expect me to believe you know all the laws, let alone abide by them yourself.

take the copyright law for instance, on the first pages of every school textbook.

It is unlawful to retain any information in any information storage and retreival system without written permission from the publisher.
Well, isn't my dna, my self, my body, and my mind information storage and retrieval systems? And, since the publishers are dead, it is unlawful for me to retain anything learned from any textbook without written permission from the dead.

I accuse the op of being in direct violation of copyright laws and offer as evidence his use of the english language in this thread.

thanks for my time,
E.T.


Originally posted by Violater1

I would be holding her hand like I would be holding a burning coal!


what is the specific number of laws that Suzanne M. Corona must adhere to (by law) before someone like you would be willing to hold her hand?



[edit on 9-6-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 04:58 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
I was simply explaining that is varies by state, and that possibly they don't have as strict of laws up there as it is not as big a problem as it is compared to somewhere like Florida. Here we have to have strict laws on the books, because places like Florida seem to attract these types of problems with some frequency.


I know what you were doing, I did not get why. I am not asking why our laws are not like your laws. I am simply saying that if through plea deals the punishment for a crime turns out to be not sufficient thus requiring BS laws to be added to the docket, why not just make the penalties stiffer for the actual crime? Why should I fund more court time for her to plea, then get tried on addition charges to undo the plea? Get what I am saying?



You ever consider that they pressed those charges knowing full well the press would pick up on them and cause these two embarrassment, or bring harsher public opinion against what they did?


Yup. I also know there is a big heroin problem in Batavia with a Crystal Meth chaser. That would make me wonder if the cops are trying to embarass them or get the press to ignore the fact that in a one horse town, they cannot do anything about the influx of lethal drugs.

Besides, who are the police to decide who should and who should not get embarrassed? Especially in this case. I can not speak for elsewhere but all around this part of the state, if a girl says she is seeing a cop the first thing you ask is if she met his wife. Cops do not have a great rep for being faithful in these parts yet I do not see them embarrassing each other.

What I do see is a drug problem going un-dealt with while my tax dollars get siphoned off to fund embarrassment the police felt was due? Maybe if Florida you guys do not pay enough in taxes or get too much in return? NY is in a different boat. We pay a lot and we get very little. I can hardly get behind my money going to fund a cops decision to embarrass people. That makes him a judge and that is not his place anyway.



Its not the judge who normally enters the plea deal, it’s the defense attorney, and sometimes the states prosecuting attorney.


I know. I did not say the judge enters the plea deal. It is usually worked out between opposing counsel before the judge is even seen. What I said is that the judge is not obligated to follow the guidelines set by the deal. The judge can just ignore it if he likes.



I was simply stating why they most likely pressed those charges, I was not approving or disapproving of them either way, so I do not understand why you seem so upset about what I stated.


Sorry if I seem upset. I am not in the least bit. I thought it was nice to have a conversation with a few people that had something more to say than Obama is a Muslim Kenyan and or all someones are all something. There are few interesting conversations with interesting people on ATS and I apologize if you all took me as being upset. I am pretty sure it is because I write the way I speak but tone of voice changes everything. I know some wonderful conversations have gone horribly wrong via text. Not upset. I am simply arguing the points you are making. If you did not expect what you said to be up for discussion, I apologize. I may have missed the concept of an open forum.



They normally stack so that the person either cannot plea out of all of the charges, or there will be at least one a jury will find for.


I know that. That does not change the logic behind it which is still redundant and wasteful.



Well its what they do in all arrests, not just this one. No point is arguing this with me, I have law enforcement friends who have explained this to me many times over the years. Its like death and taxes, its just a fact that it is what it is.


I do not live my life that way. Things change. Laws change. Perception changes. Context changes. If you are not dynamic, you are in the way. I refuse to spend on second in a holding cell because I greeted a friend with my thumb on my nose and wiggling fingers in the air. In fact, my father always did that to me as a kid so I guess I was abused and I need to get his ass in prison.

Just because it is the way it is and has been, does that really make it right? I hate to be cliche but would you have said that to Rosa Parks?

NO! I am not comparing this woman or this case to that. I am simply asking if you really agree that we should just accept the status quo because it is the status quo.



See, I didn't know that they even had that on the books up there, so maybe that will end up applying to them as well. It all depends on what laws are on the books that they can be charged with at the time of their arrest. I am very familiar with Florida state statues because one of my law enforcement friends gives me his hardcopy of them every year when he gets the next years book.


I worked with a group of sex offenders for a short while in a therapy setting. I got to know all kinds. All from New York. One kid - 19 is on that list for his entire life. Know what he did? Want to know what kind of wonderful laws New York has that have basically condemned this kid to a life of misery and failure? He was taking a piss in a park and someone saw him and reported it. That's it. A cop did not see him. He was not accused of attacking or using it or being threatening. New York is all over it.


p.s.reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


reply to post by defcon5
 


Star for you both for engaging me even after you thought I was upset and getting hostile. Honest, just engaging - meant no harm.

[edit on 9-6-2010 by K J Gunderson]

Fixed that for Violator so he would not have to bother actually reading the post quotes.

[edit on 9-6-2010 by K J Gunderson]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 05:02 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 05:10 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 05:11 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Violater1
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 

Why does it look like your quoting posts from yourself?
Are you just emphasizing your point or are you confused?


LOL, ok so I scrolled up more and you did not edit it. It is exactly what you said.

What am I missing?

[edit on 9-6-2010 by K J Gunderson]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 05:15 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 05:16 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
I am simply saying that if through plea deals the punishment for a crime turns out to be not sufficient thus requiring BS laws to be added to the docket, why not just make the penalties stiffer for the actual crime? Why should I fund more court time for her to plea, then get tried on addition charges to undo the plea? Get what I am saying?

Yes I do.
The reason is that you have the justice system that is often used as a source of income for the states, and has thus becomes overloaded. A corrections system with not enough room for all the people they need to imprison. Then you have a police department where the state expects the officers to generate as much money through arrests as possible thereby bringing income into the state in the form of fines, court costs, lawyer fees, etc.

Plea deals are cut for three reasons, 1) the person agree to roll over on a bigger fish for the state or federal government, 2) they do not have room for the person in the corrections system, or 3) because it maximizes their profits to allow people to plea guilty to lesser charges. When they let someone plea guilty to a lesser charge, they still get all their fines, court fees, federal assistance money, etc… but they do not have to lay out as much cost to tie up a judge, courtroom, and prosecution in a drawn out court battle.


Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Besides, who are the police to decide who should and who should not get embarrassed?

Using here as an example again.
They actually post the pictures of anyone arrested down here on the internet, and in a local sold for income magazine. The worst part of this IMHO, is that these are people who are only in jail, they have not even been tried yet or found guilty of any crime.
Its highly unconstitutional in my opinion.


Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Maybe if Florida you guys do not pay enough in taxes or get too much in return? NY is in a different boat.

This is going to make you mad as heck, but here in Florida we don’t have any state taxes… We let the tourists from NY pay for our roads and such through sales taxes…



Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Just because it is the way it is and has been, does that really make it right? I hate to be cliche but would you have said that to Rosa Parks?

I doubt it will change, but good luck if you can make it happen…



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 06:34 AM
link   
finaly some sence is left in mankind

cudos to the officer in question and cudos for the law acturly being used ,



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 06:41 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeker1984
Gotta love my home area of the world.


This has been plastered all over the news here. She was 41 and her "lover" was 27. Although, she's still hot for a 41 year old....but....I digress....



It's sick that they decided to boink in a children's play area. The adultery charge has only been used a handful of times in this area, and this is one of them. This is just a case of two sick people that needed to get a room.



Peace be with you.

-truthseeker


I find it interesting that adultery is the only biblical reason, given by God for divorce. Yet, adultery is so common people are amused that such a law still exists in some states.

If you are a bible believing person, or at least believe in God, then this is nothing to joke about. It's serious business and worthy of a fatal ending. I'm not a bible thumping christian, I'm just sayin'



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 08:10 AM
link   
I live in this area and have a sibling that lives in Batavia. I've seen several local news reports on the case and I almost couldn't believe someone would pick that particular place to have sex. As someone else mentioned, the area has enough seculed spots that they could of had their fun without children nearby.

I'd also like to say that I'm not agreeing with the charge (IMO it is an outdated law that should of been repealed decades ago) but the law is still on the books, she did in fact break it and thus the arresting officer is within the law to charge her with it. Just because the law is rarely used does not make it okay to break it and she broke it while commiting another crime.

I hope at the very least, this woman learns a lesson from this, if you don't want people intruding in your sex life, then maybe you should keep it behind closed doors.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Violater1
 


This is pretty stupid actually, she was having sex with her lover no big deal. They should have used their heads about where they wanted to have sex. I don't think it was wise to have sex in front of kids, so shame on them for having sex there. On the other hand I don't see a problem with adultery at all. I am in an open relationship with my husband and yes we both see someone on the side, but our family comes first. I would be pissed if they charged me for adultery, I personally would not have done the act in front of kids, because i consider that abuse, that's what she should be charged for. Plus, you guys have no idea if her husband knew or not.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   
**** REMINDER ****

Please remain on topic.....

Adultry Charge is First in Genesee County.


Thank You.




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join