Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i do agree with this. if he is having signs of dementia, then this really isn't his fault.
i have a friend whose mom is in full blown alzheimers. it is really sad to see. she is like a child now. a toddler who mumbles and every once in a while speaks a recognizable word. she pretty much just sits in her wheelchair and looks around and smiles sometimes, but who knows what she is smiling about.
if bush is headed down this road then it is very sad.
I can tell you that I have seen the same exact pattern before with an uncle who was in his 80s with dementia, and he had his own joke I heard many times. They are not in their right mind. They do and say inappropriate things. They lash out at loved ones when they never did it before.
Cite your jury instruction. Note such things are not law and do not hold up well until their is appellate decision. But cite it. I would note one of the earmarks of a charlatan is to quote non existing authority. The CA law
Humorous and proper are not mutually exclusive. I find the joke told infantile but some do fine that funny.
Your changing the subject. Exposing of genitalia comes under a different set of laws - indecent exposure. It could well rise to sexual assault if contact is made. Also much more complicated to prove then you make out as again intent raises its ugly head. And if it is a younger brother waving his penis at his sister and girl friends he would likely walk. You have to have some sexual intent. Driving your sister up the wall does not make it. Real by the way...many many years ago. KY hillbillies. Daddy though it funny. Mommy whacked him across the genitalia with a switch. Stopped that.
The jury instruction is the judge explaining the law in clear and simple terms for the jury. It breaks down the statute and relevant definitions. It's what the jury helps base its ultimate decision off of. Hand the jury just a statute and say, well, there ya go, good luck!, and they'll react to it like you - they'll have no idea what the hell it says or how to interpret it.
Stop trying to act like you know what you're talking about and you're right. You don't and you're not.
And like I said, because I know the law here, the NJ statute uses the same types of terms - sexual gratification, arousal, etc. - in the lewd conduct (what you call indecent exposure) statute. There is NO requirement at all, in either statute, that the actor must be erect or ejaculate. So you're wrong. I was not changing the subject. NJSA 2C:14-4 if you want to look it up yourself. With these types of acts, the mere thrill of touching a butt or exposing oneself to others is the gratification and leads to the arousal. These people are sick, they are not normal.
Last edited by JerseyGirl415; 10-26-2017 at 09:59 PM..
The jury instruction is the judge explaining the law in clear and simple terms for the jury. It breaks down the statute and relevant definitions. It's what the jury helps base its ultimate decision off of. Hand the jury just a statute and say, well, there ya go, good luck!, and they'll react to it like you - they'll have no idea what the hell it says or how to interpret it.
Stop trying to act like you know what you're talking about and you're right. You don't and you're not.
And like I said, because I know the law here, the NJ statute uses the same types of terms - sexual gratification, arousal, etc. - in the lewd conduct (what you call indecent exposure) statute. There is NO requirement at all, in either statute, that the actor must be erect or ejaculate. So you're wrong. I was not changing the subject. NJSA 2C:14-4 if you want to look it up yourself. With these types of acts, the mere thrill of touching a butt or exposing oneself to others is the gratification and leads to the arousal. These people are sick, they are not normal.
Ahh so your post was a flat out lie. You have no idea where or how to get an NJ jury instruction.
Does not posting out right lies bother you? Would me.
And kindly stop putting words that I did not and would not say in my mouth. Or is that another part of your need to post lies?
Mere exposure of a male penis is not grounds for indecent exposure anywhere.
Ahh so your post was a flat out lie. You have no idea where or how to get an NJ jury instruction.
Does not posting out right lies bother you? Would me.
And kindly stop putting words that I did not and would not say in my mouth. Or is that another part of your need to post lies?
Mere exposure of a male penis is not grounds for indecent exposure anywhere.
Um, I cited it in the post where I laid out the law...
And look man, you can think what you want. But you're wrong, and many other people here know it and have said it. I work in the law with sexual assault so I know what I'm talking about, at least as far as NJ statutes work. I don't know why people like you dig in their heels despite so much evidence they're wrong. I am literally explaining law to you and providing it and you're still insisting you're right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
NJ's criminal sexual contact (4th degree) statue explained, from the jury instructions:
The first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendant purposely committed an act of sexual contact with (name of victim).
Sexual contact means an intentional touching by (name of victim) or by the defendant, either directly or through clothing, of (name of victim’s) or defendant's intimate parts for the purpose of degrading or humiliating (name of victim) or sexually arousing or gratifying defendant.
Intimate parts means [CHOOSE APPROPRIATE] sexual organs, genital area, anal area, inner thigh, groin, buttock or breast of a person.
To find that defendant committed an act of criminal sexual contact, you must find beyond a reasonable doubt both that the touching was intentional and that it was done with the purpose of degrading or humiliating (name of victim) or sexually arousing or gratifying the defendant.
Intentional means purposeful. A person acts purposely with respect to the nature of his/her conduct or a result thereof if it is his/her conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result. A person acts purposely with respect to the attendant circumstances if he/she is aware of the existence of such circumstances or believes or hopes that they exist.
For gods sake, he's 93 and in a wheel chair. Just leave him alone.
I agree. He's probably getting senile/dementia. The best thing to do would be to put men on the side of him for photo ops, and warn women meeting him that they need to keep arms length away because he is a little handsy in his old age. Easily manageable.
I say this based on the fact that when he was younger, he was a gentleman, and there was never any leanings toward sexual abuse. So I am giving him the benefit of the doubt duE to his age. Plus, being in a wheelchair makes him less mobile. It's not like women can't avoid him.
I agree with many other posters - this nonstory should never have been told. A 93 y/o man in a wheelchair. For God's sake, how much harm can he do? Leave the poor guy alone
Disclaimer: I haven't voted GOP for 40 years.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The jury instruction is the judge explaining the law in clear and simple terms for the jury. It breaks down the statute and relevant definitions. It's what the jury helps base its ultimate decision off of. Hand the jury just a statute and say, well, there ya go, good luck!, and they'll react to it like you - they'll have no idea what the hell it says or how to interpret it. 
