TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

orangeblueorangeblue Archive

View 0 posts and 110 comments by orangeblueorangeblue on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

The term that should be used is “redacts”
/r/PussyPassDenied29/03/21 02:41 PM
2

It says “any alleged pay differential between Plaintiffs and allegedly comparable USMNT players is based on differences in the aggregate revenue generated by the different teams” - the only way this can be true is if the men’s per-game compensation is keyed off of revenue. The answer also states “the current CBA provides for player compensation that increases based on increased viewership, attendance and sponsorship revenue, in each case over and above their guaranteed salary and other benefits”…
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 07:51 PM
2

Pay-for-play rates are based on historic revenue. The USWNT players wanted equal dollars to the MNT, despite their per-game revenue being substantially lower. They could’ve gotten pay-for-play rates based on their actual revenue, but since that’d likely be a pay cut for them, they didn’t want that.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 05:37 PM
2

Go read US Soccer’s answer to the USWNT lawsuit
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 04:48 PM
1

That’s not what they want. They rejected that model in 2017, when they renewed their CBA. They want equal dollars to what the men make.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 04:30 PM
2

They don’t. They specifically rejected that when they redid their CBA in 2017. They already get a higher percentage of things like prize money. They want equal dollars, not equal splits.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 04:27 PM
2

In 2016-2018, the USWNT played 17 more home games than the men, and their per-game revenue was 68% of what the USMNT did over the same period. The $0.9 million overall gap in home game revenue over the three years could be cancelled out by the men playing one extra game or the women playing one fewer game. Women: 2016 Home games: 21 2016 Total attendance: 335,433 2016 Average attendance: 15,973 2017 Home games: 13 2017 Total Attendance: 235,954 2017 Average Attendance: 18,150 2018 Home games: 18…
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 04:08 PM
1

Average attendance for this WWC was about 21,000 per game. I doubt they’d make much more money by expanding the tournament.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 04:06 PM
1

The women got $2m for winning the 2015 Women’s World Cup, and $4m for winning this year. The men got $2.5 million for finishing 4th in Copa America Centenario. They got $9m for 12th place at the 2014 World Cup. The women have a lot of ground to make up.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 03:58 PM
13

Over three years (2016-18), their home game revenue was an extra $900k over the men. Of course, the USWNT needed an extra 17 home games to do it, since their per-game revenue is less than 70% of what the men bring in (their attendance is about half the men’s).
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 02:01 PM
1

They’ll encourage big European clubs to continue to pump money into it. At most, they’ll promote the Women’s Champions League a little more.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 01:58 PM
4

In 2016-2018, the USWNT played 17 more home games than the men, and their per-game revenue was 68% of what the USMNT did over the same period. The $0.9 million overall gap in home game revenue over the three years could be cancelled out by the men playing one extra game or the women playing one fewer game. Women: 2016 Home games: 21 2016 Total attendance: 335,433 2016 Average attendance: 15,973 2017 Home games: 13 2017 Total Attendance: 235,954 2017 Average Attendance: 18,150 2018 Home games: 18…
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/19 01:56 PM
1

Nope. Not in California. The definition only requires that the person "engage in sexual intercourse," so you can charge women also.
/r/MensRights01/10/17 02:15 AM
4

Not in California. In California it's "engages in sexual intercourse"... Anything else is sexual battery.
/r/MensRights01/10/17 02:13 AM
1

You're thinking of the Misdemeanor Presence Rule, which outlines when an arrest without a warrant. It generally requires a misdemeanor (simple battery) to be either witnessed by an officer or sworn by the victim. Domestic violence and some other crimes (leaving the scene of an accident) are exceptions.
/r/MensRights05/06/17 12:35 AM
1

No, he state never needs victim approval to press charges, but without a victim to testify, you can't prove they didn't consent.
/r/MensRights05/06/17 12:32 AM
3

She's on her third trial next month.
/r/PussyPassDenied14/05/17 01:05 PM
1

Drake's not African-American, but he's Afro-Canadian. His dad is African-American, though. http://assets6.capitalxtra.com/2013/45/drake-moustache-17-1384290078-view-0.jpg Rihanna's black, but not American.
/r/PussyPassDenied07/01/17 01:10 AM
1

They came back with a guilty verdict in under an hour (including the bathroom breaks, picking a foreperson, etc.). Any time you get a quick jury verdict, it's a sign of a big win. If they're out for a long time, at least one person had to be flipped.
/r/MensRights06/01/17 03:47 AM
1

By all accounts the jury believed what she said in the first trial. If she's presented as a serial victim of abuse, with this defendant being one of multiple abusers, I don't think it changes that jury's opinion. The sad reality is that child rape cases rarely have DNA evidence because they're discovered after-the-fact, so they boil down to the credibility of the victim. You either believe her testimony that the guy raped or you don't... The jury believed her the first time around, so I have no …
/r/MensRights05/01/17 10:29 PM
1

If the truth (going on the assumption that her latest testimony is truthful) had come out in the first trial that her father had also been raping her, it would've allowed that defense strategy, which is only as worthwhile as your victim is untrustworthy. By all accounts, the jury ate up everything she fed them, so they probably would've convicted anyway. In this scenario, the State is going to present the girl as victim of serial abuse, with the defendant as one of the rapists, so it's not like …
/r/MensRights05/01/17 10:03 PM
1

While I'm disappointed, it's also somewhat understandable given how often this sort of headline is posted and accurately describes what happened...
/r/MensRights05/01/17 08:56 PM
1

Thanks. Hadn't looked into what became of him.
/r/MensRights05/01/17 08:54 PM
1

Close, but not quite. The guy got a new trial, and she was able to testify in the new trial. The medical experts who said there was no explanation for her injuries other than the guy raping her weren't allowed to come back (since their testimony relied on her false statement about being a virgin - obviously, her dad's abuse is an alternative explanation for the injuries). However, because the defense can say "she lied about being a virgin previously, so you can't believe her about the guy raping…
/r/MensRights05/01/17 08:51 AM
26

No, because OP is a POS who intentionally didn't link the article and just the inflammatory headline.
/r/MensRights05/01/17 08:43 AM
11

Your summary was good up until the part about her testimony being thrown out and the case being "thrown out". The guy got a new trial because other testimony that helped convict him was given based on her false testimony (medical experts saying there was no explanation for her injuries other than him raping her, when if they'd known the truth about her father, they couldn't say that). At the retrial, the accuser got to testify again, but the defense was able to argue that she'd previously testif…
/r/MensRights05/01/17 08:42 AM
1

Why do you think he's innocent? The only testimony she changed was that she was virgin at the time this guy allegedly raped her, meaning her injuries could only have been caused by him. She didn't change her story about him raping her, she just finally admitted that she'd been sexually abused by her father before, during, and after the time this crime is alleged to have taken place. If she'd said he didn't do it, there wouldn't have been a retrial. And once you have the ability to impeach the vi…
/r/MensRights05/01/17 08:33 AM
14

Yeah, but the fact that she lied in prior testimony can be used to impeach her credibility, basically ruining her value as a witness, which is why he walked. I used to be a prosecutor, and I feel like if she'd given the actual story about her father in the original trial, both this guy and the father would be serving life sentences.
/r/MensRights05/01/17 08:26 AM
41

Yep. There's a reason he got a retrial and not a straight release from prison as wrongfully convicted. She covered for her dad which also ended up killing her own credibility. If he was wrongfully accused, it's great he's getting out, but it's also very possible that he did rape her and will get out because she covered up her dad also raping her.
/r/MensRights05/01/17 08:21 AM
9

When you appeal a ruling, you may be required to pay a supersedeas bond, which is paid to the court to hold in escrow. In Florida, it used to be equal to the amount of the judgment plus 2 years of interest, but was recently capped by statute to $50 million. However, if you don't have the money, you can ask the Court to reduce the amount, which is up to the Court's discretion (including reducing the bond amount to $0.00). This is a very good explanation of the legal issues, and unfortunately, it …
/r/MensRights19/03/16 11:47 AM
2

Nope. Supersedeas bonds are capped at $50mil in Florida, and you can petition the court for a lower amount (down to $0 if the court wants to). This is the best analysis of the legal issues surrounding the appeal that I've seen: http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2016/03/8594339/jury-awards-hulk-hogan-115-million-gawker-looks-appeal I'd love to see this play out against Gawker since I disagree with their way of doing things, but it seems pretty likely that the Second DCA will remain cons…
/r/MensRights19/03/16 11:41 AM
1

25 years was based on the charge he plead to. Vindictive sentencing requires abuse of discretion by the judge, which doesn't happen when the judge doesn't really have discretion.
/r/MensRights04/08/15 02:13 PM
1

At this point, he can get a pardon from the governor. That's his only realistic option.
/r/MensRights02/08/15 11:35 PM
1

Because the boat ramp is considered a public park.
/r/MensRights02/08/15 09:49 PM
0

No. That's a standard requirement for anyone who is convicted of child rape.
/r/MensRights02/08/15 11:51 AM
2

I guess the law isn't always pleasant. That's putting it mildly. When you do the job right and take it seriously, it's not easy. You want to get everything right, and most of the time there isn't a perfect solution. Being a prosecutor is still a law enforcement position - the primary goal is to enforce the laws of the State. I got a great piece of advice when I started from a mentor: "it's not about what you can do, it's about what you should do". That's basically a very simplified explanation o…
/r/MensRights02/08/15 03:01 AM
1

I understand the letter of the law, but my issue is that letter is not consistent throughout the country, so in one place where a judge gives no time to a teacher who had sex with a 14-year-old who committed suicide after, who he knew to be 14 because he taught her, and that judge gives him 30 days because she was 'older than her chronological age'. Even though he was in a position of authority over her and MUCH older. And she committed suicide afterwards, and this guy gets 30 days (http://www.c…
/r/MensRights02/08/15 02:36 AM
0

I get that. But there are a few things in the article that are blatantly wrong from a legal standpoint. The biggest one is that the defendant plead guilty, but the article says the victim and her mom testified on his behalf in the trial, which probably meant "at his sentencing hearing." This is another article on the case, with more detail. One of the things that stuck out to me was this bit: Shortly after their Dec. 19 meeting, he traveled with his family to Florida and, he said, the first he k…
/r/MensRights02/08/15 01:43 AM
1

To be clear, the judge was sentencing him for statutory rape, not for having casual sex. I think a lot of the judge's rant had to do with the simple fact that, if not for this kid's desire for a random hookup, he wouldn't be in this mess at all. Walk through the facts as the defendant knew them: kid uses a Facebook app to find a random hookup; he crosses state lines to meet up with her; he picks her up from her parents' home at night; he takes her to a playground and has sex with her; he drops h…
/r/MensRights02/08/15 01:26 AM
1

Judges can't change the charge, only the State can. The worst a judge can do is reject the negotiated resolution and max the kid out on whatever the amended charge is. The max for simple battery in Michigan is 93 days incarceration and a $500 fine, plus probation. There's no option for a probation-only sentence for the felony he was facing.
/r/MensRights02/08/15 01:08 AM
1

He was up for lifetime registration with the felony, on top of a lengthy prison stint. Saying that the punishment doesn't fit the crime glosses over the bottom line that he was guilty of raping a 14 year old girl.
/r/MensRights02/08/15 12:54 AM
1

Unless the judge is a complete idiot, he knew the charge the kid was arrested for had a 15 year maximum, and that there was enough evidence to convict. The defendant got a break to a misdemeanor as incentive to plea. The notion that a judge wouldn't give any jail time on a rape case involving a minor is, at best, wishful thinking. As a lawyer who's been involved in plea negotiations on thousands of cases, the worst thing you can do to a criminal defendant is blow smoke up their ass. You have eth…
/r/MensRights02/08/15 12:45 AM
1

28.723 Individuals required to be registered (1)(a)An individual who is convicted of a listed offense after October 1, 1995. The "listed offense" is the "Level II Offense" previously cited. While the judge could've given the kid no punishment at all (other than conviction and mandatory registration), that was never a realistic outcome. Even if he'd received the youthful offender program he asked the judge for, he would've faced potential for years worth of incarceration and probation. The conten…
/r/MensRights01/08/15 11:48 PM
1

He got a break down one level. By having sex with the victim, he committed Criminal Sexual Conduct in the Third Degree, a felony: sexual penetration with another person when the other person is at least 13 years of age and under 16 years of age. He plead to a reduced charge of Criminal Sexual Conduct in the Fourth Degree, a misdemeanor: sexual contact with another person when the other person is at least 13 years of age and under 16 years of age. The felony had a maximum sentence of 15 years, wh…
/r/MensRights01/08/15 11:44 PM
2

Having worked in it, I can tell you it's a crapshoot. A lot depends on the prosecutor, judge, and your defense attorney and how well they work together. Then you have to try to balance the competing interests of the victim, the State, and the defendant; typically, they all have much different ideas about what is an acceptable resolution to the case. Beyond that, there are political forces at work - the prosecutor in this case gave a reduced charge and recommended the kid for a program that would…
/r/MensRights01/08/15 11:39 PM
1

The opening statement from the prosecution would probably go something like this: The defendant contacted an individual he found on Craigslist who was advertising brand new 70" TVs for $600, cash only. He met this individual at 1:30am in a deserted parking lot, where the seller drove up in a UHaul truck. In that truck were dozens of TVs identical to the one the defendant purchased. Each one was brand new, still in the box. The defendant, suspecting something was amiss, asked the seller if the TV…
/r/MensRights01/08/15 11:24 PM
2

Jury nullification happens more often on stuff like DUI (99% of the time, every member of the jury panel will have driven home drunk at least once in his or her life) or drug possession. Rape is a tough sell for that, but the circumstances of this case are well-suited to that strategy. That said, he didn't enter into a fully-negotiated plea. He got a reduced charge and plead "open" to the judge. A judge who has a reputation for lighting people up. The crime he actually committed, sexual penetrat…
/r/MensRights01/08/15 11:14 PM
0

Except the part where he was guilty.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 10:16 PM
0

I understand. But a 5 1/2 year age gap is less normal.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 08:55 PM
2

That was my point, it is always after the law is passed that the "citizens" have a say, and it is a very long and arduous process to overturn a law once it is passed. Personally, I feel that it should be just as long and complicated to initially pass a law. Legislatures aren't really known for their high work rates. So they can get married with parental consent but not simply have sex? The mother in this particular case didn't want the boy prosecuted. Why is it then that he is in the position th…
/r/MensRights01/08/15 08:17 PM
2

Yeah, once police find nudes on your phone, it's pretty hard to negotiate.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 07:48 PM
0

Not really. Those are the rules of the US justice system - the judge rules on the law, the jury rules on the facts. BUT, there's nothing the courts or anyone else can do if a jury doesn't follow the rules, so it is within the realm of things a jury can do.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 07:46 PM
2

Petition the governor of Michigan for a pardon
/r/MensRights01/08/15 07:30 PM
1

Although just taking to them you could tell how old are they are with a 99% certainty. This.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 07:29 PM
1

Assuming this is a state that doesn't use strict liability for statutory rape, it would probably come down to how "considerably younger" the victim was.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 07:26 PM
1

261.5. (a) Unlawful sexual intercourse is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person who is not the spouse of the perpetrator, if the person is a minor. For the purposes of this section, a "minor" is a person under the age of 18 years and an "adult" is a person who is at least 18 years of age. (b) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is not more than three years older or three years younger than the perpetrator, is guilty of a misdemeanor.…
/r/MensRights01/08/15 07:16 PM
1

You can't get a retrial when you plead guilty and never had a trial.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 07:12 PM
-1

It is, in fact, illegal to meet, "hook-up, have sex, sayonara" with a fourteen year old if you're 19.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 07:08 PM
2

Solicitation laws are specifically written so that they include both someone who is underage and someone the defendant believes is underage. Sting operations for child solicitation will always have a statement made somewhere that the "victim" is underage to establish that the defendant was aware the "victim" wasn't of legal age.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 07:06 PM
2

You still have to have intended to commit the sexual conduct.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 07:03 PM
6

That sounds like this statute: "Solicitation of child by computer or certain other electronic devices to commit an unlawful sex act". But the sentencing spread (no priors) is 8 to 31 months for that crime.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 07:03 PM
1

He can have a phone. Just no internet or computer access.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 06:49 PM
-1

There is a mens rea requirement: you have to intend to have "sexual conduct" with the other person.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 06:40 PM
1

Jury nullification is technically not legal (not following the law is not lawful), but there is no real way to prove when it happens, nor any recourse against jurors who do it.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 06:39 PM
1

He also got charged with a misdemeanor ("sexual conduct") rather than a felony ("sexual penetration"), which is a huge deal. For this kid it was a difference between a 2 year maximum and a 15 year maximum. Given the facts of the case, he would've gone to trial on the felony charge, which carries much more risk if you can't convince the ENTIRE jury to not follow the law.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 06:36 PM
3

You can also be held in contempt.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 06:32 PM
5

It's pretty standard in criminal court. Although the Standard Jury Instructions we use in Florida allude to it: In closing, let me remind you that it is important that you follow the law spelled out in these instructions in deciding your verdict. There are no other laws that apply to this case. Even if you do not like the laws that must be applied, you must use them. For two centuries we have lived by the constitution and the law. No juror has the right to violate rules we all share. That's lite…
/r/MensRights01/08/15 06:32 PM
2

I think the prosecutor considered it, since he plead to a lesser crime than the one he committed. He plead to "sexual conduct" instead of "sexual penetration" (a felony).
/r/MensRights01/08/15 06:29 PM
-8

When did it become morally acceptable for a 19-year-old to have sex with a 14-year-old? Either way, nobody forced the kid to plea. He's the only one who can make that decision. While I'm opposed to jury nullification, I do think he might've had a shot at dodging it altogether with a jury, particularly if the girl testified on his behalf. BUT, prosecutors don't let you go to trial on reduced charges; if he opted for a trial, it was almost guaranteed that he would go on a charge of "sexual penetra…
/r/MensRights01/08/15 06:27 PM
1

Not entirely true. A subset of citizens elected various people that decided that 19-year-olds can't have sex with 14-year-olds. I don't disagree with that law but let's be clear about who enacts laws here. It is not the citizens of an area. In all my 20 years of voting, I have never once seen anything on a ballot that said something to the effect of "Should X be against the law?" before the law was passed. That's the democratic process - citizens vote on representatives, who pass laws on their b…
/r/MensRights01/08/15 06:20 PM
0

The crime is colloquially known as "statutory rape". It's a real thing. Don't have sex with under-aged kids.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 05:17 PM
4

Defendant was charged with and plead guilty to Criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree (750.520e) (1) A person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree if he or she engages in sexual contact with another person and if any of the following circumstances exist: (a) That other person is at least 13 years of age but less than 16 years of age, and the actor is 5 or more years older than that other person. Michigan's Sex Offenders Registration Act defines that crime as a "Tier II…
/r/MensRights01/08/15 05:14 PM
13

Because the citizens of Michigan decided that 19-year-olds can't have sex with 14-year-olds. The "I thought she/he was older" defense is against the desires of society when it comes to sex with under-aged kids.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 05:06 PM
-4

Cruel and Unusual Punishment is considered under a four-principle test described in Furman v. Georgia: "a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity" (e.g. torture, hard labor in chains, punishment for being mentally ill, or a leper, or afflicted with a venereal disease, or for being addicted to narcotics) "the State must not arbitrarily inflict a severe punishment" "severe punishment must not be unacceptable to contemporary society" "a severe punishment must not be excess…
/r/MensRights01/08/15 04:59 PM
33

I used to be a prosecutor. Given the wishes of the victim and her mother, I have no clue why the prosecutor here didn't change the charge to simple battery/assault in order to guarantee no registration. The judge could've still given the same probationary requirements, which would suck for the kid, but not nearly as bad as being a registered sex offender for the next 25 years.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 04:41 PM
46

If that's the case, the kid might get off on ineffective assistance of counsel. The defendant plead to 520e, which is specifically excepted from the Act. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to any of the following: (d) A violation, attempted violation, or conspiracy to violate section 520b, 520c, 520d, or 520e of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.520b, 750.520c, 750.520d, and 750.520e, other than section 520d(1)(a) or 520e(1)(a) of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.520d and…
/r/MensRights01/08/15 04:33 PM
14

Hard to avoid a conviction when you plead guilty.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 04:26 PM
3

Extremely unlikely. The States are required to have registries by virtue of various Federal laws, like the Jacob Wetterling Act and the Adam Walsh Act (named after the son of the host of America's Most Wanted). Every Supreme Court case addressing sex offender registration has resulted in the Court upholding the lower court ruling.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 04:26 PM
-5

There's nothing to throw out. He plead guilty. Registration is a mandatory sentencing requirement for that charge.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 04:05 PM
-15

Why? The charge the kid plead to requires mandatory registration (there's a "Romeo and Juliet" exception for consensual conduct when the age difference is less than four years, but it doesn't help the kid since he was 5 years older).
/r/MensRights01/08/15 04:03 PM
-1

Registration was mandatory. He got 90 days out of a two year max. Moral outrage didn't play a factor.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 03:49 PM
17

That wasn't a reason for the sentence. That charge carries mandatory registration as part of the sentence, and the defendant plead guilty.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 03:31 PM
4

The kid plead guilty to a crime that requires mandatory registration. The judge had no discretion on that part of the sentence.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 03:30 PM
6

He plead guilty. There is no chance of a new trial.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 03:28 PM
14

No. You waive your right to appeal when you plead guilty. Unless the sentence itself is illegal or vindictive, there's nothing to appeal. Since the registration requirement is mandatory, that isn't appealable. The only thing there would be to argue is the jail term, but a 90 day sentence on a case that carries a two year max isn't going to be found as vindictive. Source- actual lawyer
/r/MensRights01/08/15 03:27 PM
15

If the judge had a grudge, he would've maxed the sentence at two years instead of 90 days in jail. Because the defendant plead guilty to that crime, he must be registered as a Tier II sexual offender. It's a mandatory requirement; the only discretion the judge had was regarding the jail time. If anything, the victim's testimony helped cut his jail time. But it can't prevent the mandatory registration requirement. I'm surprised that the kid's lawyer let him plead to that. While her lying about he…
/r/MensRights01/08/15 03:25 PM
1

Yeah, including the one who admitted to placing the gun in the victim's hand and the one who admitted to shooting the victim.
/r/MensRights30/01/15 03:54 AM
1

In Florida, pointing a gun at someone is not a felony unless it places the victim in fear. The witnesses say the victim was laughing during the incident, so that's going to be tough to prove. So you're left with misdemeanor "Improper Exhibition of a Firearm", which requires display of a firearm in a "rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner".
/r/MensRights30/01/15 03:14 AM
1

You don't have the required evidence to prove assault based on the facts here. The critical element in assault is placing the victim in fear: the witnesses say the victim was laughing through the ordeal, meaning you have nothing to prove that element.
/r/MensRights30/01/15 03:09 AM
1

The only witness testimony they have is that she racked the slide and then removed the mag (source). This would result in a round sitting in the chamber. The testimony seems to be consistent across three witnesses. And the SAO isn't going to be able to get anything else to work with. Also, a 2nd degree murder charge would be a mandatory direct-file to adult court per statute, so you'd be locking yourself into a jury trial on a murder charge against a pregnant 17 year old with three eyewitness st…
/r/MensRights30/01/15 02:54 AM
1

No, you don't need to prove motive. It's not an element of murder. It's circumstantial evidence for premeditation, but it's not required.
/r/MensRights30/01/15 02:41 AM
1

This local news story has more details. Landaverde says Lety took the gun, slid the slide back and ejected a round. She then took the magazine out of the gun, according to Landaverde, then pointed the gun at her boyfriend and questioned him further about taking the Xanax. She did the steps you'd use to clear a weapon, but in the wrong order. Racking the slide with the magazine in ejects a round, but strips a new round off the mag when the slide returns forward.
/r/MensRights30/01/15 02:38 AM
2

He's wrong. Florida's 10-20-Life statute only applies to specific offenses and manslaughter isn't on the list. This means she gets sentenced based on her scoresheet, which would be 124 months without any prior offenses.
/r/MensRights30/01/15 02:29 AM
1

Manslaughter isn't a 10-20-Life offense, so no 25-year minimum. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.087.html
/r/MensRights30/01/15 02:27 AM
1

We don't KNOW, but 3 witnesses all said the same thing when they could've said nothing
/r/MensRights30/01/15 02:26 AM
1

No, the two eyewitnesses also said the same thing.
/r/MensRights30/01/15 02:24 AM
1

NOPE. Manslaughter isn't an enumerated offense for TTL purposes (list), so there's no 25-year minimum sentence. It gets bumped to a First Degree Felony (Level 8) on her score sheet, resulting in a sentence of 124 months.
/r/MensRights30/01/15 02:23 AM
0

Even if she's tried as an adult, she's eligible for youthful offender sentencing, which would probably end up being the same maximum juvenile sentence she'd plead to to get filed in juvenile. According to local news, witness said the victim was laughing during the incident, so I think you might be overstating how much "terrorizing" was going on.
/r/MensRights30/01/15 02:19 AM
1

Manslaughter isn't an enumerated offense in the 10-20-Life statute, so there's no 25-year minimum mandatory; assuming no prior criminal history, she'd score 124 months in prison. She's also eligible for youthful offender sentencing, which would probably result in juvenile sanctions.
/r/MensRights30/01/15 02:10 AM
2

TTL is shorthand for Florida's 10-20-Life statute, which has minimum mandatory sentences for specific crimes involving firearms. Enumerated crimes are subject to minimum mandatory sentences, but all crimes get bumped up a level if a firearm is used (manslaughter goes from a 2nd degree felony to a 1st degree). Florida has a statute that allows certain defendants to receive reduced sanctions (juvenile commitment among the possibilities). The legislative intent is included in the statute language: …
/r/MensRights30/01/15 01:43 AM
2

There's no mandatory direct-file at 17 for manslaughter without a criminal record, only for PBL or capital crimes. I suspect that the SAO would allow a negotiated plea to max juvenile sanctions (Level 10 commitment with post-release community control or probation). Because manslaughter isn't an enumerated crime in Florida's TTL statute, there's no 25 year minimum sentence. Even filed as an adult, she could ask for (and probably get) youthful offender sanctions, which would likely be the max juve…
/r/MensRights29/01/15 04:05 PM
1

In my experience prosecuting pregnant juveniles in Florida, I've never seen parental rights removed. Even the girl who was jumping walls and fences while running from police kept her kid, and that was clear endangerment to the baby.
/r/MensRights28/01/15 06:57 PM
-1

The baby is not an orphan until mom dies. And I was more concerned with whether she's taking it while pregnant.
/r/MensRights28/01/15 06:40 PM
1

Why?
/r/MensRights28/01/15 06:36 PM
-1

A drug murder? This doesn't strike me as a drug deal gone south. Sounds like an argument between a 17yo girl and her baby-daddy about Xanax usage to me. (Whether it's the "won't share" or "bf needs to quit" argument is unknown, for the baby's sake I hope it's the second one).
/r/MensRights28/01/15 04:52 PM
3

Except she's 17, so would be sent to juvenile court (and receive juvenile sanctions) unless direct-filed to adult court.
/r/MensRights28/01/15 12:14 PM
9

Doubtful. She's a pregnant juvenile, and I don't see her being tried as an adult. I'd guess between 6 months and 2 years in a juvenile facility, unless she's filed as an adult.
/r/MensRights28/01/15 12:12 PM
2

Immediately recanting is a basic defense to "false information"; sounds like she gave the sops the real story and they didn't charge her with the add-on. Not sure what the State Attorney will do with this one, filing as a adult might depend on how close to 18 she is and whether she'll negotiate a plea to stay in juvenile.
/r/MensRights28/01/15 12:10 PM
2

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence
/r/MensRights13/12/14 03:12 PM
1

It's the same process used to get fingerprint standards or DNA samples from a defendant, albeit used in a very unusual way.
/r/MensRights10/07/14 02:37 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter