Skip to main content

View Diary: "Wow! So it's not my fault." (238 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The hypocrisy of the Right (28+ / 0-)

    "If you don't have the money to raise them, don't have kids... BUT, we're going to make it illegal to carry more then three condoms (D.C), de-fund planned parent hood, birth control, and abortions because those are 'wrong'. So your only option is, don't have sex, even if you're married."

    I don't know when they're going to notice that "if you can't afford to have kids don't have them" and their wanting to make everyone's procreation decisions for them are not compatible viewpoints. I have noticed that much of the time, the same people saying the one thing are also espousing the other.

    These are also the same people who are against a living wage. So the new message is, abstinence only even if you're married, forget the old "abstinence before marriage thing" at least if you have the audacity to be working poor.

    I'm not, by the way advocating telling people not to have children in any way shape or form, I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of of such statements.  At least Gogogoeverton added the bit about subsidized birth control, but birth control sometimes fails. And sometimes you have a good job, have kids, and the the economy takes a downturn and the good jobs disappear. Sometimes you develop a chronic condition through no fault of your own, or you're in an accident,  and can no longer work. There is no way to ensure you can afford to raise your kids unless you are lucky enough to be independently wealthy.

    •  GOP: Pro-life until after birth. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Then, notsomuch.

    •  4 condoms illegal? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pgm 01, Mudderway

      Say what? Is this some recent issue I missed?

      •  In DC (7+ / 0-)

        If you're carrying 3 or more condoms they can use that as evidence that you're a prostitute.

        So ok, not illegal, but, enough of a deterrent that there's a good chance it would reduce condom use. If you're unlucky and stopped by the wrong cop, and are coming home from somewhere with a box of condoms, or from a clinic with a bag of free ones, you very likely could be arrested for solicitation.

        Another way to discriminate against the poor.

        •  Yet they sell them by the dozens! (7+ / 0-)

          In fact I know Lifestyles sells them in a 36-pack, because I have purchased them at Target.  I even got a yeah-right eyeroll from a cashier once - little did she know that Mrs. Rethink prefers not to take the pill.

          I really need a new signature that is lofty enough for DK4 - but I just haven't eaten enough arugula and sipped enough lattes to come up with one today. Sorry folks!

          by RethinkEverything on Tue May 31, 2011 at 01:23:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You can use all kinds of stuff (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          as evidence of all sorts of stuff.  But it's not dispositive.

          Look, bloodshot eyes are ONE (of many) indicia used to indicate impairment by liquor.

          It does not therefore follow that merely having bloodshot eyes means cops can (validly) arrest you for DUI.

          OF COURSE having 3 or more condoms is supportive evidence to a charge of prostitution.  And it should be.

          It doesn't mean that having 3 or more condoms is in itself criminal, nor does it mean having a box with several times that in your car is going to be suggestive of prostitution.

          Otoh, if you are flagging down cars on the side of Pac Hwy at 3 am, dressed skimpily in cold weather, have past convictions for prostitution, and have 6 condoms in your purse, EACH of those factors when taking with others can help establish Reasonable Suspicion and/.or Probable Cause.  The word for that in the legal trade is "totality of the circumstances"

          And actually, in these cases we are talking about Loitering for the Purpose of Prostitution or other similar charges in most states.

          In most states, an actual prostitution charge requires some sort of agreement that includes both a sex act and a payment for same.

          Behavior that is entirely legal, and even unsuspicious in and of itself, when taken with other factors can give rise to reasonable suspicion... or even PC.

          As it should be.

          Having blood on your shirt isn't illegal.

          Running isn't illegal.

          Running from the direction of a homicide just occurred, with blood on your shirt certainly is reasonable suspicion for the cops to detain you, though
          PC is supposed to be commonsense, and based on the totality of the circumstances.

          •  PC is up to the judgment of the officer on the (0+ / 0-)

            scene. Which means, if he judges that it's okay for him to harass people he deems "improper", he can mess with them with impunity.

            "But there's one thing that gives every Marine the willies, and anyone saying otherwise is a liar. Drop pods. That shit is terrifying, son."

            by Shaviv on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 06:42:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, it doesn't (0+ / 0-)

              PC is ULTIMATELY up to the judge reviewing the case when a suppression hearing and/or civil suit are filed, and the former judgment can go all the way to the supreme court.

              and ime, motions to suppress are near automatic in almost any criminal case prior to trial.  i've been to scores of them.

              if the officer is deemed by an independent finder of law, to whit - a JUDGE - to not have had reasonable suspicion when he made a terry and.or PC when he made an arrest, then ALL evidence is thrown out to include statements made, evidence recovered, etc.

              furthermore, if the officer was found to have made a judgment that was grossly deficient, there are grounds for a serious lawsuit as has happened a metric assload of times.

              yes, ... in the field (in the short term) PC (and RS) are up to a cop, because judges don't cruise around in patrol cars making arrest... unless they are sylvester stallone in cheezy futuristic schlock sci-fi movies.

              But ultimately, all decisions as regards to PC, reasonable suspicion, exigency etc. etc. are reviewable by a judge and if found deficient, the "exclusionary rule " generally applies - iow evidence is thrown out.  The automatic  exclusionary rule is something many otherwise liberal nations do NOT have e.g. the UK, and makes us rather unique as we were about the first, if not the first, to establish it.

              •  In the meantime (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                while you're waiting for the judge to decide, you've been arrested, possibly harassed, reputation possibly infringed upon if the arrest is known, labeled a prostitute... possibly even lost your job or kids.

                yes, you may be completely exonerated after, and it may not take you having the money to file a civil suit or take it to the supreme court. But in the meantime you're entire life is in upheaval because you accidentally walked through the wrong part of town with a box of condoms and dressed the 'wrong' way.' (maybe you picked up the condoms on the way home from a club)

                Not to mention people being afraid that this is what will happen, and so, they just don't buy or use condoms, hence hindering availability to contraceptives.  If you have money you may  not be as afraid of this scenario happening, but if you don't have money to fight it, if you happen to live in or near one of these "zones", which presumably aren't in the best parts of town then it does affect the availability of contraception.

                •  I think this is a bit much (0+ / 0-)

                  The idea that people are so afraid of being mistaken for a prostitute that they eschew buying condoms.  I mean... puhleeze.

                  I believe the term is "baseless worry"

                  We are talking about the oldest profession in the world, one frankly that law enforcement as well as society doesn't really care that much about.  Cops do the occasional sting, and from the many prostitutes I have talked to (often a great source of street intel for law enforcement officers), law enforcement is FAR FAR from their biggest concern - homicide, rape and robbery are.

    •  there is actually a law that says how many condoms (0+ / 0-)

      you can carry with you? wow. wow. I am speechless.

      "We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

      by Mudderway on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 08:32:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site